JUDGMENT : ANJANA PRAKASH, J. 1. The sole Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to RI for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to RI for three years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-V, Purnea in S. Tr. No. 1173 of 2008 arising out of Bhawanipur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2008 by a judgment of conviction dated 01.12.2012. 2. The case of the prosecution according to Rukhsana Khatun the daughter of Md. Rahman is that on 15.05.2008 while her father was sitting on a “Machan” in front of the house and his brother, Kakku was standing on the road suddenly four accused persons came there and surrounded him. The Appellant is said to have fired at the deceased. When his father came to pick up his brother, Kakku Accused Harun is said to have fired at him. His brother and father in a serious condition were taken to the Primary Health Centre at Bhawanipur and thereafter to Purnea. The reason for the occurrence was that in the morning at about 10 A.M. a passerby had been detained by the Appellant and Harun and assaulted at which his father saved him and brought him to his “Machan”. This had enraged the accused persons who had threatened him of dire consequences. In the evening the present occurrence is said to have taken place as a sequel to the occurrence of the morning. This matter was reported at the Primary Health Centre by P.W.6 at 9 P.M. to P.W.16, the Investigating Officer. 3. The prosecution in all has examined sixteen witnesses in support of its case. However, P.W.7, Md. Ansar, P.W.8, Md. Yakub Nadaf, P.W.9, Md. Izhar, P.W.10, Md. Gyas Shah did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. P.W.11, Md. Shamim Alam, P.W.14, Sikandar Alam also did not support the case of the prosecution but were not declared hostile. However, they are on minor points. 4. P.W.1, Noor Mohammad, P.W.2, Md. Yunus, P.W.3, Md. Wasir @ Bouku, P.W.4, Md. Raqib @ Photo, P.W.5, Sanjida Khatoon, P.W.6, Kukhsana Khatun, P.W.12, Wazida Khatun, P.W.13, Md. Rahamullah have been examined as eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.15, Dr. Vir Kunwar Singh held the Postmortem of the deceased. P.W.16, Sunil Kumar is the Investigating Officer. 5. 4. P.W.1, Noor Mohammad, P.W.2, Md. Yunus, P.W.3, Md. Wasir @ Bouku, P.W.4, Md. Raqib @ Photo, P.W.5, Sanjida Khatoon, P.W.6, Kukhsana Khatun, P.W.12, Wazida Khatun, P.W.13, Md. Rahamullah have been examined as eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.15, Dr. Vir Kunwar Singh held the Postmortem of the deceased. P.W.16, Sunil Kumar is the Investigating Officer. 5. From the evidence of P.W.1, Noor Mohammad, we find that he deposed as eye-witness stating therein that on the date of occurrence he saw the deceased Kakku having been caught by the four accused and being dragged towards the courtyard and thereafter being shot at by Appellant, Md. Quaiyum. He also stated that when the other deceased, Rahman went to pick him up Harun shot at him. He proves the signature on the photo copy of the inquest report which is marked as Exhibit-X for identification. In his cross-examination, he stated that the Informant was his own niece meaning thereby that deceased, Md. Rahman was his brother and deceased, Kakku his nephew. Importantly, his attention was drawn to his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. that he was not an eye-witness but a hearsay witness. This is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.16, Sunil Kumar in Paragraph 12 wherein he stated that he had not deposed before him as an eye-witness. In such circumstances, we have no option but to reject the eye-witness account of P.W.1. 6. P.W.2, Md. Yunus stated that on the morning of the occurrence when the accused persons were coming with toddy on their cycles a passerby dashed with his cycle on account of which he fell down with toddy. The passerby was assaulted by Quaiyum which was prevented by deceased, Rahman. This had enraged Quaiyum who had threatened him of dire consequences. In the evening, when he was returning from the fields he saw the accused persons near the door of Rahman where Kakku was present and is said to have been fired at by Appellant and thereafter the deceased was shot at by Md. Harun. His attention was also drawn to the earlier statement given to P.W.16 in Paragraph 8 that he was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. This fact was corroborated by the Investigating Officer, P.W.16 in Paragraph 11. In such circumstances, we also reject the eyewitness account of P.W.2. 7. P.W.3, Md. Harun. His attention was also drawn to the earlier statement given to P.W.16 in Paragraph 8 that he was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. This fact was corroborated by the Investigating Officer, P.W.16 in Paragraph 11. In such circumstances, we also reject the eyewitness account of P.W.2. 7. P.W.3, Md. Wasir @ Bouku who happens to be the borther of deceased, Rahman stated that while he was sitting at his door on the evening of the occurrence he saw the accused persons on the door and then pulling the deceased towards side of the road. Quaiyum is said to have shot at Kakku which hit him on the eye. When deceased, Rahman went to pick him up Harun shot at his stomach injuring him seriously. They were then removed to the hospital from where Rahman was referred to the Sadar Hospital, Purnia. At Purnia, Rahman was declared dead. He stated that the occurrence took place on account of the morning incident. In cross-examination he clarified that there was absolutely no enmity between the parties apart from the morning incident. Both the shots were fired simultaneously one after the other at which some people had gathered who he names. He stated that his statement was recorded at Bhawanipur Hospital by the Investigating Officer. 8. P.W.4, Md. Raqib @ Photo who was the cousin brother of deceased, Kakku stated that on the morning of the incident the accused persons had quarrelled with a passerby who was rescued by deceased, Rahman. A Panchayati was proposed to be held the next morning but in the evening itself the accused person came and pulled away deceased, Kakku and shot him dead. When Rahman went to save him he also shot at. Both persons were removed to Bhawanipur Hospital where the inquest of Kakku was prepared which is marked as Exhibit-X1 for identification. From his evidence, it is difficult to make out as to whether he is an eye-witness to the occurrence and, thus, we propose to keep his evidence out of consideration. 9. P.W.5, Sanjida Khatun who is the wife of deceased, Rahman and step-mother of deceased, Kakku. She stated that on the date of occurrence while she was sitting at door and Kakku was collecting fodder the accused persons came there and pulled away Kakku towards the door of Nathun and shot at him on his temple. 9. P.W.5, Sanjida Khatun who is the wife of deceased, Rahman and step-mother of deceased, Kakku. She stated that on the date of occurrence while she was sitting at door and Kakku was collecting fodder the accused persons came there and pulled away Kakku towards the door of Nathun and shot at him on his temple. When her husband went to save him he was shot at by Harun on the chest. She also repeats that an occurrence had taken place in the morning incident when Md. Quaiyum had been dashed against by a passerby and the deceased, Rahman had intervened in the matter. In her cross-examination she stated that the deceased was being pulled towards the door of Nathun where Kakku was shot at by Quaiyum. She describes the place of marks from which it appears that the house of the accused persons and witnesses are adjacent to each other. She further states that the Investigating Officer had come the very next day and collected the blood-stained earth. 10. P.W.6, the Informant, Rukhsana Khatun stated that on the date of occurrence while her father was sitting on the Machan her brother was collecting fodder when the accused persons came there and Quaiyum shot at his brother, Kakku. When her father came to save him Harun shot at him. Both in an injured condition were removed to the Primary Health Centre at Bhawanipur then to Purnea where she had given her fardbeayn. In her cross-examination she stated that her brother was attempted to be pulled towards the house of Nathun where Quaiyum shot at him. In her cross-examination, she stated that her father had some kind of dispute with Quaiyum over some business straying of goats. 11. P.W.12, Md. Wazida Khatun stated that on the date of occurrence the accused persons came and pulled away Kakku towards the house of Nathun where Quaiyum shot him on the head. When Rahman attempted to save him Harun shot at him. She stated that she was daughter of the deceased, Rahman and even though she was married she was living in her matrimonial home. 12. P.W.13, Md. Rahamtullah, the husband of P.W.12 stated that on the date of occurrence Kakku was pulled away towards the house of Nathun and stated that when his father-in-law attempted to save him he was also shot by Harun. 12. P.W.13, Md. Rahamtullah, the husband of P.W.12 stated that on the date of occurrence Kakku was pulled away towards the house of Nathun and stated that when his father-in-law attempted to save him he was also shot by Harun. In his cross-examination, he gives confusing statements as to whether he was examined or not examined by the Investigating Officer. However, the Investigating Officer, in Paragraph 12 stated that he had examined P.W.13 and he was not an eye-witness in the earlier statement. In such a situation, we also reject the evidence of P.W.13. 13. P.W.15, Dr. Vir Kunwar Singh conducted the post-mortem on Md. Rahman and found the following injury on his person. The same is quoted herein-below:- On External Examination:- (i) Rigor mortis present. (ii) Wound of entry - A lacerated wound of one inch diameter with inverted margin with charring over upper part of abdomen on the left side. (iii) Wound of exit - A lacerated wound of 2”X1” with inverted margin above right iliac crest on the back. Injury No. (ii) and (iii) were communicating to each other. (iv) On dissection:- Head & Neck: NAD Chest-Heart-all chamber empty Lungs-Pale (v) Abdomen:-Spleen and right kidney raptured, liver-pale stomach contains semi digested food. small and large intestine-gas and feacal matters, urinary bladder empty. (vi) Time elapsed since death: within 24 hours. (vii) Cause of death - In my opinion, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to above mentioned injuries caused by fire arms. This Post-mortem report is in my pen and signature, it is marked as Ext.-1. He also conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Kakku and found the following injuries on his person as quoted herein-below:- “On External Examination:- (i) Rigor mortis present. (ii) Wound of Entry - An oval wound of 1” x 1/2” size situated over the side of scull 4” above left ear with inverted margin with charring. (iii) On Dissection:- Head - Cranial cavity full of blood and blood clots, brain matter lacerated, one bullet recovered from cranial cavity. (iv) Neck : N.A.D. (v) Chest-Heart-Right chamber full, left chamber empty, Lungs congested. (vi) Abdomen-Liver, spleen, kidney congested, stomach contains semi digested food, small and large intestine-Gas and feacal matters, Urinary bladder-empty. (vii) Time elapsed since death:- within 24 hours. (iv) Neck : N.A.D. (v) Chest-Heart-Right chamber full, left chamber empty, Lungs congested. (vi) Abdomen-Liver, spleen, kidney congested, stomach contains semi digested food, small and large intestine-Gas and feacal matters, Urinary bladder-empty. (vii) Time elapsed since death:- within 24 hours. (viii) Cause of death:-In my opinion, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to above mentioned injury caused by fire-arm. Note - One bullet preserved sealed and handed over to Constable. This post-mortem report is in my pen and signature, marked Ext.-1/A. 14. P.W.16, Sunil Kumar stated that Exhibits-2 & 3 which is the fard-beyan and formal First Information Report. He testifies that he had examined the witnesses of the occurrence as also the place of occurrence and procured the post-mortem reports. 15. Counsel for the Appellant submits that since the four witnesses i.e. P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.12 belong to the same family and they are interested their evidence be discarded on this score alone. The further submission is that there is some discrepancy with regard to the injuries having been caused to deceased, Rahman and, therefore, the prosecution should not be relied upon. 16. On the other hand, Counsel for the State submits that the prosecution case is fully corroborated by medical and objective evidence and, hence, there is no reason why the conviction of the Appellant should not be maintained. 17. In this case we find that remarkably both the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of witnesses are to the point leaving no scope for digression or even introspection. 18. While we were discussing the evidence of the witnesses, we have noted that we were inclined to discard the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.13 and P.W.14 for reason of them not being eye-witness at the earliest instance. However, from the evidence of P.W.3, Md. Wasir @ Bouku, P.W.5, Sanjida Khatoon, P.W.6, Kukhsana Khatun and P.W.12, Wazida Khatun, we find that they have fully supported the fact that on the evening of the occurrence the four accused persons came there and attempted to pull away Kakku towards the door of Nathun where he was shot dead by the Appellant, Md. Quaiyum. There is no discrepancy in this regard either in the chief or in the cross-examination. Quaiyum. There is no discrepancy in this regard either in the chief or in the cross-examination. We also find from the evidence of P.W.15, the Doctor that the prosecution case is well established by the medical evidence in circumstances when he finds one inverted wound on the head with charred margins which is said to be the cause of death. We further find that the report of the incident was made at the earliest instance at 5 P.M. at the Primary Health Centre, Bhawanipur. P.W.16 describes the place of occurrence and the houses of the accused persons which were adjacent to each other. He examined the witnesses promptly who have not contradicted themselves on any material particulars. He collects the blood-stained earth of the deceased from the place of occurrence which further corroborates the prosecution case. 19. In such circumstances, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.