JUDGMENT Imtiyaz Murtaza, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 14.6.2005, passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No. 578 of 2003, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10000/-, and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for one year. 2. Briefly stated, according to the prosecution case, there was enmity between informant Jagpali Saroj and Achchay Lal Saroj accused of his village. On account of the said enmity, on 16.8.2003 at about 6 p.m., when she was coming alongwith her husband Ram Asre Saroj after weeding the paddy crop and as soon as reached the field of her brother-in-law (Dewar) Babulal, accused Achchay Lal reached there with a country-made pistol in his hand and challenging her husband fired at him, which hit on his back. Her husband fell down on the ground. Out of fear, several persons working in the field ran away. On alarm being raised by the informant, her sister-in-law Gayatri Devi, brother-in-law Lalji and several other villagers reached the spot and witnessed the incident. Accused Achchay Lal Saroj ran away towards northern side of the village. With the help of her relatives, the informant took her husband to the police station and lodged the report of the occurrence, whereupon a case crime no. 153/2003 under Sections 307 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act was registered against the accused. The victim was taken to District Hospital, Pratapgarh, where the doctors declared him dead. After the death of the victim, the case was converted under Section 302 IPC. 3. The Investigating Officer commenced the investigation. He recovered one empty cartridge from the spot vide recovery memo Ext. Ka 6. He prepared the site-plan Ext. Ka 7. Inquest on the dead body was also conducted, vide report Ext. Ka 9. The other police papers for conducting post-mortem examination, etc. were also prepared vide Exts. Ka 10 to Ka 16. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet Ext. Ka 8 was submitted against accused Achchay Lal and Radhey Shyam under Sections 302/120B IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. 4. The case was committed to the court of sessions. The Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 120B IPC against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty. 5. Ka 8 was submitted against accused Achchay Lal and Radhey Shyam under Sections 302/120B IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. 4. The case was committed to the court of sessions. The Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 120B IPC against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty. 5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined in all nine witnesses. P.W. 1 Jagpali is the wife of deceased Ram Asre Saroj. She deposed that after weeding the paddy crop on the date of occurrence, she, her husband, Gayatri and Lalji were returning. Her husband was ahead of her. Accused Achchay Lal reached there from western side and fired on the back of her husband. On alarm being raised by her, Lalji and Gayatri reached there. Achchay Lal ran away towards northern side extending threats that whosoever gave evidence against him, he/she would be dealt with in the same manner. She further deposed that two days prior to the incident, Radhey Shyam had given a country-made pistol to Achchay Lal. She proved the report Ext. Ka 1. 6. P.W. 2 Gayatri Devi has supported the testimony of P.W. 1 and deposed that at about 3 p.m., Ram Asre Saroj, Jagpali, Ram Prasad, sister-in-law Chandrakali, brother-in-law Lalji, sister-in-law Raj Kumari and Raj Kumari's daughter Sheela Devi had gone to weed the paddy crop. On weeding, when the grass removed from the field was being carried away by Ram Asre and Jagpali to their house, the accused reached there at about 6 p.m. and fired with his country-made pistol at Ram Asre, which hit on his back. Ram Asre fell down in the field and became unconscious. Waving the pistol in his hand, accused Achchay Lal declared that whosoever came to give evidence against him, he would be finished. Ram Asrey was taken to the police station, where report of the occurrence was lodged. Thereafter the victim succumbed to his injuries. 7. P.W. 3 Lalji Saroj deposed that he is married to Chandrakali, sister of Ram Asre deceased. On 16.8.2003, he was in his in-laws' house. After weeding of the crop was done, Achchay Lal came there and fired at Ram Asrey. The shot hit on his back. After sustaining injury, Ram Asre fell down in the field of Babulal. He and Gayatri were present there at the time of occurrence. On 16.8.2003, he was in his in-laws' house. After weeding of the crop was done, Achchay Lal came there and fired at Ram Asrey. The shot hit on his back. After sustaining injury, Ram Asre fell down in the field of Babulal. He and Gayatri were present there at the time of occurrence. They lifted Ram Asrey. The report of the incident was lodged by Jagpali, which is Ext. Ka 1. 8. P.W. 4 Chandrakali deposed that Ram Asre was his brother. She had come to the village 4-5 days prior to the incident on account of Rakshabandhan festival. Her relative Puspa Devi had also come. About two days prior to Rakshabandhan festival, she was going to market for purchasing Rakhi, she saw that Radhey Shyam came to the house of Achchay Lal. Radhey Shyam was telling Achchay Lal that many years had passed, they had not been able to take revenge of the death of his (Achchay Lal's) father. Achchay Lal told Radhey Shyam that he had no fire arm, hence he was not being able to take revenge. Radhey Shyam said that he would arrange the arm and ammunition. This witness did not take the conversation seriously and went to the market to purchase Rakhi. When this incident happened, they could know about the conspiracy hatched by the accused to commit the murder of his brother. 9. P.W. 5 Constable Durg Vijay Singh, who was posted as Head Moharrir at P.S. Antoo, has proved the chik F.I.R. and T.D. Entry Ext. Ka 3 and 4. 10. P.W. 6 Dr. A.C. Tripathi conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of deceased. He found the following ante-mortem injury on the body: 1. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the right side of back, about 7 cms below lower angle of right scapula and 4 cm lateral to mid line. Margins blackened and inverted. Bullet recovered from outside of right side of chest wall from muscles, about 7 cm below right nipple. 11. In the opinion of doctor, cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem fire-arm injury. He has proved the post-mortem report Ext. Ka 5. 12. P.W. 7 SO Manoj Kumar Pandey is the Investigating Officer of the case. 13. P.W. 8 Ashok Kumar Tiwari had concluded the investigation and filed charge-sheet against the accused. 14. 11. In the opinion of doctor, cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem fire-arm injury. He has proved the post-mortem report Ext. Ka 5. 12. P.W. 7 SO Manoj Kumar Pandey is the Investigating Officer of the case. 13. P.W. 8 Ashok Kumar Tiwari had concluded the investigation and filed charge-sheet against the accused. 14. P.W. 9 SI Rajendra Pratap Singh has proved the charge-sheet Ext. Ka 18. 15. None was produced in defence. 16. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid, hence this appeal. However, he acquitted accused Radhey Shyam under Sections 302 and 120B IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, giving him benefit of doubt. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and have perused the record. 18. The first submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no immediate motive for the appellant to commit the crime. It is submitted that old enmity has been mentioned in the first information report by the informant. In this connection, it is necessary to mention that it is a case of direct evidence. The prosecution case has been supported by three eye-witnesses. P.W. 1 has also narrated that a quarrel had also taken place between the parties about one month back in relation to partition and there was also some altercation, which took place in connection with plucking of mangoes. In the case of direct evidence, motive has no value. In the case of Balram Singh versus State of Punjab, reported in (2003) 11 SCC 286 , it has been held, "If the incident in question as projected by the prosecution is to be accepted then, the presence or absence of a motive or strength of the said motive by itself also "would" not make the prosecution case weak." In the case of State of U.P. versus Kishanpal, reported in (2008) 16 SCC 73 , the Apex Court has held, "The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence, but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eye-witnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eye-witnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of eye-witnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction." 19. Next submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has failed to prove the place of occurrence. In this connection, the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the testimonies of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, who have described the whole incident. There was no occasion for the prosecution to change the place of occurrence. In the instant case, the incident had taken place at 6 p.m. and the report was lodged the same day at 7-50 p.m. The distance of police station from the place of occurrence was 11 kms. The report was thus lodged promptly, which eliminates the chances of concoction. 20. Another submission of counsel for the appellant is that the presence of eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence is doubtful because all the witnesses have stated that they had gone for weeding the paddy crop and according to the testimonies of the witnesses, on the date of occurrence it rained heavily, therefore, there was no occasion for weeding the crop. The Sessions Judge has considered this submission and came to the conclusion that weeding of the crop is also possible by plucking the grass. Thus, there was no occasion for disbelieving the presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence on this ground. 21. We have perused the findings recorded by the trial court and have gone through the record. The incident had taken place in broad day-light. The accused was already known to the witnesses. The eye-witnesses were subjected to extensive cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited to discredit their testimonies. The presence of eye-witnesses at the place and time of incident is proved. The first information report was lodged while the deceased was alive. The report was lodged promptly, i.e. the same day at 7-50 p.m. which eliminates the chances of embellishment. The medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular testimony. The presence of eye-witnesses at the place and time of incident is proved. The first information report was lodged while the deceased was alive. The report was lodged promptly, i.e. the same day at 7-50 p.m. which eliminates the chances of embellishment. The medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular testimony. In our view, the Sessions Judge has committed no error in holding the appellant guilty of committing the murder of the deceased and awarding sentence of imprisonment for life for the said offence. 22. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 23. The appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. 24. The trial court record shall be sent back to the trial court for compliance. 25. Judgment pronounced under Chapter VII Rule 1(2) of the Rules of the Court.