JUDGMENT Bharat Bhushan, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.11.1982 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 1982 (State versus Triloki Singh) whereby accused-appellant was prosecuted under section 302 Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) but convicted under section 307 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. It is pertinent to point-out that accused was tried under section 302 IPC but learned Sessions Judge, Pilibhit thought it proper to convict the appellant under section 307 IPC and consequently, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years, but no State appeal has been preferred as pointed out by learned Additional Government Advocate. Therefore, this Court is confining itself to this criminal appeal filed only on behalf of convict/accused. 3. Prosecution story is that in the evening of 18.11.1981, deceased Kabul Singh and his wife complainant Gurdeep Kaur (PW-1) were busy in production of jaggery (Gur) at the 'Jhala' of Nanak Singh. Nanak Singh's sons, namely, Autar Singh (PW-2) and Ujagar Singh (PW-3) were also present at their 'Jhala'. They were extracting juice from the sugarcane and sugarcane juice was being boiled in cauldron (Karaha) for production of jaggery. Suddenly the appellant Triloki Singh @ Mahaveer Singh arrived there. He was abusing, threatening and brandishing his licensed revolver. Accused Kabul Singh, who was sitting on the floor, stood up. Appellant shot him from the close range. Deceased received gun shot injuries on his stomach and fell-down and appellant managed to flee from spot. 4. PW-1 Gurdeep Kaur, wife of the deceased immediately arranged a tractor-trolley and rushed him to the Police Station Gajraula and lodged the First Information Report (in short, FIR) at 9: 10pm. scribed by one Kripal Singh. A chik report was also carved out (Ex.Ka-9). Injured Kabul Singh was sent to Civil Hospital, Pilibhit where he was immediately examined and a gun shot wound was found on his body. The medical report says thus: - "A gun shot wound 0.5 cm. X 0.5 cm x depth kept under observation on right side abdomen 5 cm. above from umbilicus at 11 O'clock position, edges inverted, semi-clotted blood present at side of injury, blackening present and on margin of wound. Injury kept under observation, advised X-ray." 5. The investigation ensued. The medical report says thus: - "A gun shot wound 0.5 cm. X 0.5 cm x depth kept under observation on right side abdomen 5 cm. above from umbilicus at 11 O'clock position, edges inverted, semi-clotted blood present at side of injury, blackening present and on margin of wound. Injury kept under observation, advised X-ray." 5. The investigation ensued. Initially the incident was investigated under section 307 IPC but deceased Kabul Singh died in hospital on 5.12.1981 after 18 days of continuous treatment. Therefore, the case was converted into 302 IPC. The post-mortem was conducted and following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of deceased : 1.Stitched wound 10 cm. long on right side abdomen. 2.Stitched wound 1 cm. long in right flank. 3.Stitched wound 1 cm. long in right iliac fossa. 4.Stitched wound 1 cm. long on front and inner side of right ankle. 6. As stated earlier, case had been converted into under section 302 IPC after receiving information of death and after interrogating witnesses. An FIR earlier lodged by deceased Kabul Singh against appellant also surfaced. A charge sheet under section 302 IPC (Ex.Ka-11) was submitted. During the course of trial, appellant was charged under section 302 IPC but appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. Prosecution examined complainant Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, (widow of deceased) as PW-1, Autar Singh, (eye-witness) as PW-2, Ujagar Singh, (eye-witness) as PW-3, S.I. V.S. Gaur, (Ist Investigating Officer) as PW-4, Head Constable Dharamveer Singh Tyagi as PW-5, S.I. Sudesh Pal Singh, (IInd Investigating Officer) as PW-6, Dr. C.B.Singh as PW-7 and Constable Bachchu Singh as PW-8. After recording statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. a witness namely, Balveer Singh (DW-1) was produced on behalf of defence. The trial court concluded that appellant Triloki Singh @ Mahaveer had indeed shot deceased Kabul Singh deliberately in the evening of 18.11.1981 in presence of PW-1 Gurdeep Kaur, PW-2 Autar Singh and PW-3 Ujagar Singh. The trial court also concluded that death of deceased Kabul Singh took place after 18 days of incident and doctor had opined that there was no danger to the life of deceased from the shot fired by appellant Trilokii Singh. The trial court held that death of deceased Kabul Singh was not direct result of injuries caused to him by appellant Kripal Singh. The trial court held that death of deceased Kabul Singh was not direct result of injuries caused to him by appellant Kripal Singh. Therefore, appellant was convicted under section 307 IPC and consequently sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years by the impugned judgment. As stated earlier, learned counsel for both the parties have admitted that State has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment and order, therefore, considering the delay of almost 33 years in disposal of this appeal, it would be appropriate to confine ourselves to the appeal filed by the convict/accused. 8. Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai and Sri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 9. This is one of the few cases in which there is no dispute regarding the core issue. Both the parties admit that deceased Kabul Singh was shot by appellant Triloki Singh in the evening of 18.11.1981 with his licensed revolver. Even the place of occurrence is not disputed. The facts that deceased Kabul Singh was medically examined in the same night at about 10: 30pm at Civil Hospital, Pilibhit and later died on 5.12.1981 in the same hospital are also not in dispute. Prosecution has alleged that appellant Triloki Singh arrived at the place of occurrence brandishing his licensed revolver in furtherance of his intention to kill deceased Kabul Singh and deliberately fired a shot at him causing injuries in his stomach. 10. On the other hand, appellant has claimed that deceased Kabul Singh and his companions namely, Autar Singh (PW-2) and Ujagar Singh (PW-3) were consuming liquor at Jhala of Nanak Singh' as appellant was traversing the area. The deceased and his companions tried to snatch appellant's licensed revolver from him and in the struggle and by accident, some body pushed the trigger of the revolver thereby injuring deceased Kabul Singh. 11. The present incident occurred in the evening of 18.11.1981 at 6: 30pm while a report was lodged by widow of deceased Kabul Singh in the same night at 9: 10pm. It is pertinent to point-out that deceased, appellant and all the witnesses of facts, either belong to same clan or related to each other. All of them were farmers. It appears that somehow relations between appellant and deceased Kabul Singh had become strained. It is pertinent to point-out that deceased, appellant and all the witnesses of facts, either belong to same clan or related to each other. All of them were farmers. It appears that somehow relations between appellant and deceased Kabul Singh had become strained. An FIR of previous incident had in fact been lodged by deceased Kabul Singh on 1.8.1981 alleging that convict/accused had fired couple of shots upon the deceased in the evening of 31.7.1981 near farm from where the deceased managed to escape due to intervention of several persons including women though Police merely recorded that incident as non-cognizable offence, but a bare perusal of report (Ex. Ka-12) would reveal that there was allegations that appellant had fired at least couple of shots by fire arm weapon. It is evident that if Police had taken effective steps on earlier occasion then perhaps second incident might have been avoided. The present incident has to be seen in the backdrop of the earlier incident. 12. Prosecution has adduced the very credible testimony of as many as three witnesses. Prosecution examined complainant Gurdeep Kaur (PW-1), Aurtar Singh (PW-2) and Ujagar Singh (PW-3). All of them have given a very credible evidence. The star witness, PW-1 Gurdeep Kaur widow of Kabul Singh, deceased, and daughter of real brother of appellant/convict lodged the FIR promptly. The incident occurred at about 6: 30pm and FIR was lodged at 9: 10pm at Police Station Gajraula which was 6 kms. away from the place of occurrence. It is necessary to keep in mind that incident took place in winter of 1981 in tarai area which was full of forest. Almost 33 years have elapsed. There was no effective and satisfactory network of telephone. Road network was almost non-existent. A judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that tarai area of then Uttar Pradesh was infested with extremists' violence. Considering the state of affairs prevailing at that point of time, it is apparent that FIR was lodged promptly. Widow arranged a tractor-trolley after the incident and rushed to Police Station in the same night. Thereafter, deceased was medically examined around 10: 30pm in the same night. The contents of FIR as well as entries made in the General Diary (in short, G.D.) (Ex.Ka-10) disclose that PW-1 Gurdeep Kaur had accompanied her injured husband first to Police Station and thereafter to the hospital. Thereafter, deceased was medically examined around 10: 30pm in the same night. The contents of FIR as well as entries made in the General Diary (in short, G.D.) (Ex.Ka-10) disclose that PW-1 Gurdeep Kaur had accompanied her injured husband first to Police Station and thereafter to the hospital. Entries made in the G.D. reinforces this conclusion. 13. The testimony of PW-1 Gurdeep Kaur, is highly credible. She has consistently stated that at time of incident she was assisting her deceased husband in production of jaggery. There is no reason to disbelieve her testimony. She was cross-examined intensively but she reiterated her allegations in the most trustworthy manner. The deposition of PW-2 Autar Singh and PW-3 Ujagar Singh has also reinforced the prosecution case. Both of them asserted that appellant Triloki Singh had deliberately shot deceased Kabul Singh. The presence of both Autar Singh and Ujagar Singh is highly natural for the simple reason that Jhala in which jaggery was being manufactured was owned by their father Nanak Singh. This fact is mentioned in the FIR itself lodged immediately after the incident. It is pertinent to point out that incident per se is admitted to both the parties. The difference is only about genesis and manner of incident. Defence has not denied the presence of PW-2 Autar Singh and PW-3 Ujagar Singh. On the contrary appellant/convict himself has claimed that deceased Kabul Singh, PW-2 Autar Singh and PW-3 Ujagar had tried to snatch his licensed revolver used for injuring Kabul Singh. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement of the Investigating Officer wherein it is stated that he did not find sugar cane juice in cauldron nor did he find fire in the oven. Submission is that this belies the claim of all eyewitnesses. PW-4 S.I. V.S.Gaur visited the place of occurrence on the next day in the morning. He recorded the statement of Ujagar Singh (PW-3), prepared the site-plan (Ex.Ka-3) with the help of Ujagar Singh and found licensed revolver of the appellant in the grass at the place of occurrence and took hold of it and prepared a memo (Ex.Ka-4). A fard (Ex.Ka-5) was also prepared of lantern and handed over its custody to Nanak Singh. There is no dispute regarding the ownership of revolver of appellant Triloki Singh. A fard (Ex.Ka-5) was also prepared of lantern and handed over its custody to Nanak Singh. There is no dispute regarding the ownership of revolver of appellant Triloki Singh. Defence has also not raised any dispute regarding the ownership of weapon of attack. In fact, no claim has been made that recovered weapon was not used in firing the fatal shot. During the course of cross-examination, PW-4 S.I. V.S.Guar stated that he did not find sugar cane juice or jaggery on the spot. Defence has stated that this admission on the part of Investigating Officer creates doubt regarding the genesis of prosecution story as the Investigating Officer did not find any material to support the claim that jaggery was being prepared when this incident took place. I am afraid this argument is not sustainable. A careful perusal of statement of PW-4 S.I. V.S.Gaur would reveal that he did not physically verify the fact that jaggery was being produced. All eyewitnesses have testified that deceased and his wife Gurdeep Kaur (PW-1) were busy in the process of manufacturing jaggery (Gur) when incident took place. As far as removal of cane juice is concerned, it could have been done in the morning by Ujagar Singh (PW-3) himself. This question should have been directed to Ujagar Singh and Autar Singh. The incident occurred in the farmers' family. Anybody could have removed sugar cane juice from the spot. It was a valuable material for farmers that is why they were busy in production of jaggery and merely because spices and other materials for cleaning the sugar cane juice were not found next day in the morning would not vitiate the testimony of eyewitnesses. S.I. V.S.Gaur has conceded that he did not verify the fact of production of jaggery. It does not even make much difference as contours of production story including presence of eyewitness is admitted even to the appellant/convict. In any case, law is well settled. Shoddy investigation or latches in investigation can not by itself be enough for disbelieving the prosecution story especially if eyewitness account is trustworthy and satisfactory. The Full Bench of this Court in Gopal and others versus State of U.P. 199 Crl. L.J.2501 has established this principle. In any case, law is well settled. Shoddy investigation or latches in investigation can not by itself be enough for disbelieving the prosecution story especially if eyewitness account is trustworthy and satisfactory. The Full Bench of this Court in Gopal and others versus State of U.P. 199 Crl. L.J.2501 has established this principle. The Apex Court in its judgment in Bishundeo Poddar and others versus The State of Bihar, 2003 Crl.L.J.1558 has held thus: 'Be that as it may, the fate of case does not depend on what the Investigating Officer or the prosecutor ought to have done and evidence ought to have led. The fate of case depends on the evidence which is on record.' Similarly the Apex Court in its decision in Amar Singh versus Balwinder Singh, 2003 Cri.L.J. 1282 has held that every failure or omission of Investigating Officer cannot render prosecution case doubtful or unworthy of belief. 15. The present case has been proved by high quality evidence of three eyewitnesses. It is true that they are related witnesses but they are also related to the appellant. The fact that the witnesses are related is not sufficient to disbelieve and discard the testimonies of otherwise reliable witnesses. There is no legal rule to discard the testimonies of related witnesses if otherwise found satisfactory. In the present case, the incident was narrated in FIR which was lodged promptly. Both the witnesses were named in the FIR. The basic contour of prosecution story is admitted to both the parties. The claim of defence that incident occurred on account of effort of deceased and his friend to snatch the revolver of the appellant incidently is not acceptable for want of evidence. The defence has produced one witness Balveer Singh who is also related to both the parties but a perusal of this evidence would reveal that he had not witnessed the incident. His testimony or story about what actually transpired is admittedly based on the information furnished by Triloki Singh himself. This witness has admitted in examination-in-chief that he heard noise of fire arm weapon. He met appellant Triloki Singh in the way as he was going towards source of this noise. Triloki Singh informed him that his revolver had been snatched by the deceased and his companions and therefore, accused was going to the Police Station. This witness has admitted in examination-in-chief that he heard noise of fire arm weapon. He met appellant Triloki Singh in the way as he was going towards source of this noise. Triloki Singh informed him that his revolver had been snatched by the deceased and his companions and therefore, accused was going to the Police Station. It is clear that this story and evidence of DW-1 Balveer Singh are based on the information furnished by the appellant/convict himself. In any case, even this claim can not be accepted for one reason. DW-1 Balveer Singh says that appellant Triloki Singh had rushed towards the Police Station after the incident occurred at 6: 30pm. The FIR was lodged at Police Station at 9: 10pm. Kabul Singh injured was medically examined at 10: 30pm at Civil Hospital, Pilibhit. It took considerable time for informant to take the injured to the Police Station because they were busy in arranging transport. The tractor-trolley is by its very nature a slow moving vehicle. Night was obviously dark. It was onset of winter in the year 1981. But appellant was not facing any such difficulty. He should have been at Police Station much earlier but did not reach the Police Station prior to injured and informant. PW-4 S.I. V.S.Gaur has testified on oath that he went to the place of occurrence at 12: 30am (midnight) night between 18.11.1981 and 19.11.1981 and he managed to catch the accused there. The FIR had already been lodged at 9: 10pm. If FIR was not in existence, there was no occasion for the Police to visit the place of occurrence and arrest the appellant. It is pertinent to point out that FIR had not been lodged in the presence of PW-4 S.I. V.S.Gaur. He has emphatically stated in his deposition that FIR had been lodged in his absence. In fact, when he returned to the Police Station at 10: 45pm, he was appraised of the incident and lodging of FIR. He reached the place of occurrence at 12: 30am (midnight) and managed to arrest the accused and brought him back at 1: 00am. He has emphatically stated in his deposition that FIR had been lodged in his absence. In fact, when he returned to the Police Station at 10: 45pm, he was appraised of the incident and lodging of FIR. He reached the place of occurrence at 12: 30am (midnight) and managed to arrest the accused and brought him back at 1: 00am. It also belies the claim of the defence that FIR was ante-timed for the simple reason that if FIR had not been in existence at 9: 30pm, then injured could not have been examined at Civil hospital, Pilibhit at 10: 30pm with Chitthi Majroobi, which says that injured was medically examined at 10: 30pm at Civil Hospital, Pilibhit and without existence of FIR it was simply not possible. The prosecution could not have manipulated all the record of Police Station as well as of hospital. In any case, there was urgent need of treatment of deceased and wife of deceased and her companions would not have allowed the Police to play any game with the life of the injured. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that circumstances surrounding the FIR are suspicious and that FIR was placed before the court on 23.11.1981 despite the fact that it had been registered on 18.11.1981. The record reveals that appellant-accused was produced before the Magistrate on 19.11.1981 i.e. the next day of the incident. In the court, he had moved an application Ex. Kha-1 alleging that deceased Kabul Singh, witnesses Autar Singh (PW-2) and Ujagar Singh (PW-3) and one Nanak Singh were consuming liquor at Jhala and when they saw Triloki Singh, accused they tried to snatch his licensed revolver; and in the melee somebody pushed the trigger of his revolver. Bullet was discharged and Kabul Singh was injured. He further says that he went to Police Station where he was arrested. It is obvious that FIR of Gurdeep Kaur (PW-1) was in existence at that point of time otherwise there was no occasion for the police to arrest Triloki Singh. It is true that legal position is very clear. It is expected that Investigating Officer would despatch the chik report to the Magistrate concerned quickly but courts have to judge each case on its peculiar circumstances and evidence. In the circumstances of the present case ante-timing of the FIR was neither required nor feasible. It is true that legal position is very clear. It is expected that Investigating Officer would despatch the chik report to the Magistrate concerned quickly but courts have to judge each case on its peculiar circumstances and evidence. In the circumstances of the present case ante-timing of the FIR was neither required nor feasible. Injured had to be rushed to the hospital. In those days, it would have been difficult to receive medical treatment at Civil Hospital, Pilibhit without assistance and Chitthi Majrubi of the Police Station. The Apex Court in 'Alla China Apparao & others versus State of Andhra Pradesh, 2003 Crl. L.J. 17' has held thus : "This apart, it is a matter of common experience that there has been tremendous rise in the crime resulting into enormous volume of work, but increase in the police force has not been made in the same proportion. In view of the aforesaid factors, the expression `forthwith' within the meaning of Section 157(1) obviously cannot mean that the prosecution is required to explain every hour's delay in sending the first information report to the Magistrate, of course, the same has to be sent with reasonable despatch, which would obviously mean within a reasonable possible time in the circumstances prevailing." In any case, this argument did not impress trial court. I am in complete agreement with the conclusion of trial court in this regard. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that appellant did not have any motive to commit the crime. It is argued that both deceased and appellant belonged to same clan and there was no reason or occasion for the appellant to shoot the deceased by fire-arm in presence of his own niece. The court, can only look into the available material, which demonstrates clearly that relations between the appellant and deceased were bad. In fact, a FIR containing serious allegations had been lodged by the deceased Kabul Singh on 1.8.1981 alleging that appellant had fired few shots upon Kabul Singh in the evening of 31.7.1981 in presence of several witnesses. As stated earlier, police lodged this FIR in the category of 'non cognizable offence'. At least prima facie offence under section 307 IPC was made out. This FIR (Ex.Ka-12) demonstrates that existence of previous enmity. Whatever may be cause, the factum of strained relationship between the deceased and appellant is clear and visible. As stated earlier, police lodged this FIR in the category of 'non cognizable offence'. At least prima facie offence under section 307 IPC was made out. This FIR (Ex.Ka-12) demonstrates that existence of previous enmity. Whatever may be cause, the factum of strained relationship between the deceased and appellant is clear and visible. It cannot be accepted that earlier FIR had been concocted subsequent to present incident. The trial court has concluded that chik register in this respect could not have been prepared fraudulently after a gap of considerable period. This Court is in complete agreement with this conclusion. 18. The contents of the application Ex.Kha-1 moved by Triloki Singh, convict/accused demonstrates that witnesses Autar Singh (PW-2) and Ujagar Singh (PW-3) were present on the spot. The application also contains the averment that Balveer Singh, Dhayan Singh and Nisan Singh were also present but Dhayan Singh and Nisan Singh were not produced by the prosecution or by defence but Balveer Singh was produced by defence. He has conceded during cross-examination that incident did not occur before his eyes and he had merely heard gun shot noise. He met appellant Triloki Singh while he was going towards the source of noise. In fact the story narrated by DW-1 Balveer Singh merely reinforces the broad contours of the prosecution story. It also indicates that he was not present on the place when actual incident took place. In fact, his claims are essentially based on the information stated to have been furnished by appellant Triloki Singh alias Mahabeer Singh, which can not be taken into account for the purpose of this trial. Learned counsel for defence has argued that it is a case of accidental firing; that deceased and his companions tried to snatch the revolver of the accused-appellant; that the gun was discharged accidentally in the grappling. He submits that appellant merely fired a single shot which indicates that he was not interested in assassinating the deceased. He has also submitted that no x-ray report was placed on record for ascertaining the internal damage. These arguments do not absolve the appellant/convict of his crime. This Court is concerned whether he had fired the fatal shot. All available evidence evidence establish that it was appellant/convict who fired the fatal shot. He has also submitted that no x-ray report was placed on record for ascertaining the internal damage. These arguments do not absolve the appellant/convict of his crime. This Court is concerned whether he had fired the fatal shot. All available evidence evidence establish that it was appellant/convict who fired the fatal shot. Similarly ascertainment of internal damage or production of x-ray report was job of prosecution but its failure has not dented or weakened the prosecution story or decredited its evidence. 19. PW-4 S.I. V.S. Gaur during his testimony has stated that he did not move any application for recording formal dying declaration because he did not anticipate the death of deceased. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of PW-7 wherein Dr. C.B.Singh conceded that he also did not anticipate the death of deceased till 5-6 days prior to the actual death of deceased. Apparently the deceased was in the hospital and some medical complication arose later on account of which he died suddenly and because of this, doctor said that death was not direct result of the injuries. This claim of doctor is debatable. Deceased was taken to hospital in the aftermath of attack. He was continuously confined to hospital. After eighteen (18) days, he expired. Hospitalization was direct result of fire-arm injury. Medical complications were consequence of the attack. But since State has not preferred the appeal, no useful purpose would be served by raking this controversy after three decades. 20. However, learned counsel for appellant has claimed that all the aforesaid claims do indicate that firing took place accidentaly and there was no evidence on record to establish that deceased was injured in deliberate firing. I am afraid, this claim of counsel for the appellant is not borne out of evidence available on record. First of all, it is evident that at least three witnesses of fact have claimed that appellant deliberately shot deceased Kabul Singh. It is further evident that deceased Kabul Singh had lodged FIR Ex.Ka-1 couple of months prior to the present incident wherein similar allegations were levelled against the appellant Triloki Singh alias Mahabeer Singh. The present incident cannot be judged in isolation. Previous FIR indicates that the appellant was in fact angry with the deceased and was interested in physically harming the deceased. The present incident cannot be judged in isolation. Previous FIR indicates that the appellant was in fact angry with the deceased and was interested in physically harming the deceased. The present incident should, therefore, be judged in a proper prospective in the backdrop of the earlier incident. 21. Three eyewitnesses have supported the prosecution story by credible and trustworthy evidence. The defence himself has not denied the presence of Autar Singy (PW-2) and Ujagar Singh (PW-3) at the place of occurrence, as is evident from the application Ex. Kha-1 moved by Triloki Singh on 19.11.1981 for registration of his case. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that evidence of Autar Singh (PW-2) can not be taken into consideration because he is a chance witness. I am afraid this argument can not be given any weightage for the simple reason that Jhala where the incident took place belongs to the father of PW-2 Autar Singh. PW-3 Ujagar Singh was his brother, therefore, claim that PW-2 Autar Singh was a chance witness is not supported by fact. The presence PW-2 Autar Singh at the place of occurrence was quite natural and it had been admitted by the appellant himself in his application Ex. Kha-1 moved on 19.11.1981 on the next day of incident. It is pertinent to point out that 19.11.1981 is the date on which appellant was produced before the court for the first time and on that day he admitted the presence of both PW-2 Autar Singh and PW-3 Ujagar Singh on the spot at the time of incident. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out certain discrepancies in the testimony of various witnesses. He has submitted that PW-2 Autar Singh had claimed that appellant Triloki Singh alias Mahabeer Singh had taken away the revolver after the incident while PW-4 Investigating Officer found that revolver in the grass on the place of occurrence next day in the morning. He argued that this discrepancy has created doubt about the whole prosecution story. I am afraid this argument is not acceptable. First of all, every discrepancy and contradiction does not necessarily indicate that witnesses are lying. Normal routine contradictions do sometimes also indicate that witnesses are natural and not tutored. The minor contradictions found in the evidence are normally not a ground for discarding the evidence of such witnesses. I am afraid this argument is not acceptable. First of all, every discrepancy and contradiction does not necessarily indicate that witnesses are lying. Normal routine contradictions do sometimes also indicate that witnesses are natural and not tutored. The minor contradictions found in the evidence are normally not a ground for discarding the evidence of such witnesses. The court will have to see whether such contradictions and discrepancies affect the core of prosecution story and evidence. If no adverse prejudice is caused to prosecution story, such contradictions and discrepancies should be discarded. In the present case, an incident occurred in the late evening of November month. No body was expecting appellant Triloki Singh to arrive on the spot and shoot the deceased Kabul Singh. This obviously must have create fear and trepidation. The witnesses present on the spot must have perturbed, apprehensive and worried about their own safety and simultaneously anxious about the condition of deceased Kabul Singh. In such a situation, if PW-2 Autar Singh could not see that Triloki Singh had dropped his licensed revolver nearby, cannot be a ground for disbelieving his testimony. It is possible that Triloki Singh had taken his revolver initially but had dropped it in the melee, therefore, statement of PW-2 Autar Singh in fact cannot be treated as discrepancy. It is quite possible that PW-2 Autar Singh had seen revolver in the hands of Triloki Singh before he had dropped it. I am afraid this so called discrepancy certainly does not adversely affect the core of prosecution story. 23. I have carefully examined all the material on record. It is evident that basic contours of prosecution story are admitted to defence itself. Defence has admitted the presence of PW-2 Autar Singh and PW-3 Ujagar Singh on the spot. There is no dispute that the licensed revolver of appellant Triloki Singh was used for firing shot at the deceased Kabul Singh. The place of occurrence is not disputed. The time of occurrence is also not disputed. PW-1 Gurdeep Kaur, PW-2 Autar Singh and PW-3 Ujagar Singh have reinforced the prosecution story in a credible and trustworthy manner. The statement of Kabul Singh recorded on 24.11.1981, Ex.Ka-7, has demonstrated the presence of PW-1 Gurdeep Kaur on the spot. There is no reason for Gurdeep Kaur to let go the real culprit and implicate falsely her own uncle for death of her husband. The statement of Kabul Singh recorded on 24.11.1981, Ex.Ka-7, has demonstrated the presence of PW-1 Gurdeep Kaur on the spot. There is no reason for Gurdeep Kaur to let go the real culprit and implicate falsely her own uncle for death of her husband. The trial court has marshalled the evidence adroitly and reached right conclusions logically. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that 33 years have elapsed and accused is now 70 years of age. He has no criminal history. He has already spent one year in jail, therefore, he be let out with the period already undergone. He has also submitted that only the case under section 324 IPC is made out against the appellant. I am afraid that the trial court has been very generous with the appellant already despite concluding that appellant had deliberately shot deceased Kabul Singh which ultimately resulted in his death. In fact, the deceased never went out of the hospital. He died in the hospital on 18th day of his admission as complication occurred on account of fatal shot but the trial court in its wisdom convicted the appellant under section 307 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years only. As said earlier, this Court is confining itself only to the appeal filed on behalf of appellant. The argument that case is only made out under section 324 IPC is not supported by material on record. On facts and circumstances of the case, it can not be accepted that the appellant/convict is guilty of offence under section 307 IPC only. Deceased was seriously injured by appellant/convict by firing a shot upon him. Deceased died on 18th day of medical complications. These complications indeed occurred on account of injury caused by shooting. Therefore, conviction of appellant under section 307 IPC is not justified. This Court believes that considering the testimony of doctor, delay of more-than thirty years in deciding this appeal and non-filing of appeal by State, it would be appropriate to alter the finding of conviction under section 307 IPC to Section 304 IPC Part-I without changing the quantum of punishment. Merely because significant time has elapsed is not a ground to reduce the sentence of appellant further. With the aforesaid modifications, appeal is dismissed. 25. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court through the Session Judge concerned within 15 days.