JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—The Criminal Appeal No. 2562 of 1984 has been preferred by the appellant Indrajeet against the judgment and order dated 16.8.1984 passed by the Spl. Judge, Basti in S. T. No. 21 of 1983, State v. Indrajeet and others, under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”), Police Station Khalilabad, District Basti whereby the accused appellant Indrajeet has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 2. Co accused namely Ram Chet and Dileep Kumar, who were also convicted under Section 352 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment have also filed, criminal appeals No. 2440 of 1984 (Ram Chet v. State of U.P.) and 2425 of 1984 (Dileep Kumar v. State of U.P.) respectively. Appellant Dileep Kumar died during the pendency of the criminal appeal No. 2425 of 1984. As such, the appeal filed on his behalf was dismissed as abated vide order dated 20.8.2007. Hence, the criminal appeals No. 2562 of 1984 (Indrajeet v. State) and 2440 of 1984 (Ram Chet v. State of U.P.) are being taken up for consideration. 3. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is as follows : 4. As per the prosecution story, on 13.11.1982 at around 6.30 pm when the deceased (Purnmasi) with his wife Smt. Prawati Devi-P.W.1, Ram Awadh-P.W.3, brother-in-law (sarhoo), Achhey Lal-P.W2, brother in law’s son and some customers including P.W.6, Sarwanand, was present at his hotel (Dhaba), the accused appellant Indra Jeet, with his companions Dilip Kumar and Ram Chet, arrived there and asked if they could get something to eat at the hotel. Smt.Parwati Devi, the wife of the deceased asked Indra Jeet, to first clear his dues of Rs. 30/-. Infuriated by the demand made by Smt. Parwati Devi, accused Indra Jeet, asked Purnwasi (deceased) that why could he not stop his wife from making such a demand which she often makes. On this, the deceased Purnwasi too, justifying the demand of arrears by his wife, asked Indra Jeet, to pay off his dues. Thus the accused Ram Chet and Dilip, the two accomplices of Indra Jeet, exhorted Inderjeet to beat Purnwasi for his audacity to demand money. On this, the deceased Purnwasi too, justifying the demand of arrears by his wife, asked Indra Jeet, to pay off his dues. Thus the accused Ram Chet and Dilip, the two accomplices of Indra Jeet, exhorted Inderjeet to beat Purnwasi for his audacity to demand money. On hearing this the appellant Indra Jeet got infuriated and enraged whipped out a country made pistol and fired at Purnwasi hitting him on his left chest just below his collar bone, resulting his instantaneous death on the spot. A petromex was allegedly burning inside the hotel by the side of the deceased. This incident amongst others was witnessed by Smt. Parwati Devi, P.W. 1 Achhey Lal P.W.2, Ram Awadh P.W.3 Sarwanand, P.W.6 and a host of adjoining shopkeepers and customers present at the hotel. Smt. Parwati Devi, the wife of the deceased, after getting a written report Ext. Ka-1, scribed by one Ved Prakash Chaubey a school teacher, proceeded to the P.S. Khalilabad, in the company of her sister-in-law in a Jeep and handed over the written report Ex. Ka-1 to the Head constable, Ravindra Singh, then posted at P.S. Khalilabad, who on the basis of the written report drew the chik report Ext. Ka2 and registered a case vide general diary No. 47, at 7.45 p.m. on that very day of the incident (Ext. Ka-3). After registration of the case P.W.4, Head constable, Ravindra Singh, sent the relevant papers alongwith zild panchayatnama, etc to P.W.6, S.I. Bechan Singh through a constable Dhanusdhari at Maghar. On receipt of the papers, S.I. Bechan Singh, P.W. 8, proceeded with the investigation of this case. He took the dead body into custody, appointed panchas, and after inspecting the dead body, prepared panchayatnama, photo nash, challan nash, and wrote letters to the Chief Medical Officer and the concerned Medical Officer (Ext. Ka-6 to Ext,. Ka-10). He, thereafter, sealed the dead body and handed it over alongwith relevant papers to constable Ram Daras, P.W. 5, and Mahant yadav, for taking it to the mortuary at Basti. These two constables in their turn took the dead body to the mortuary where on their identification of the dead body P.W.9, Dr. K.K. Tripathi, then posted in the District Hospital, Basti, held autopsy at 3.30 p.m on 14.11.82 and found that the deceased was aged about 26 years. He was average built. These two constables in their turn took the dead body to the mortuary where on their identification of the dead body P.W.9, Dr. K.K. Tripathi, then posted in the District Hospital, Basti, held autopsy at 3.30 p.m on 14.11.82 and found that the deceased was aged about 26 years. He was average built. The rigour mortis was present in both, upper and lower extremities. He had died about a day before and his eyes and mouth were half opened. 5. He found following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body. 1. Gun shot wound 3.0 cm x 2.5 cm x chest cavity deep on the left side chest lateral to the mid line 2.00 cm. below the media level of the left clavicle bone. Margins are inverted blackening, tattooing, and charring present. Directed backward laterally wound of entry. 6. On examination, he found the second coastal cartilage fractured. The left pleura and lungs were found punctured at several places. The left chamber of the heart was found punctured through and through, both the chambers were empty. He also found about two and half pounds of clotted blood in the chest cavity. He extracted four wadding pieces and five large pellets from chest cavity. He also found four ounce of undigested paste like food which were not in identifiable stage. According to Dr. Tripathi, the deceased had died as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to his ante-mortem injury which in the ordinary course of the nature was sufficient to cause his death. He was of the opinion that the ante-mortem injury of the deceased would have been caused by some fire-arm, including a country made pistol. He has also opined that the deceased would have died around 6.30 p.m. on 13.11.82. 7. Now adverting to the investigation part of the case, it is borne out that even after dispatching the dead body to mortuary P.W. 8, S.I., Bachan Singh, kept himself engaged with the investigation of this case. He on the same night inspected the spot on the pointing of Smt. Parwati Devi, and prepared a site plan Ext. Ka-11. During the course of his spot inspection, he found blood spattered on the ground and collected samples of blood soiled and ordinary earth Exts. 6 & 7 respectively through a memo Ext. Ka-12. He also found an empty cartridge Ext. 8 and took into custody through a memo Ext. Ka-11. During the course of his spot inspection, he found blood spattered on the ground and collected samples of blood soiled and ordinary earth Exts. 6 & 7 respectively through a memo Ext. Ka-12. He also found an empty cartridge Ext. 8 and took into custody through a memo Ext. Ka-13, and sealed it on the spot. He also took the petromex into his custody which was allegedly burning at the time of the incident and after inspecting it gave the same in the supurdgi of Smt. Parwati Devi, through a memo Ext. Ka.14. After all these formalities, he recorded the statement of Smt. Parwati Devi, P.W.1, Achhey Lal, P.W.2, Ved Prakash Chaubey, Lakkhi Chandra Gupta, and Ram Jatan. 8. On 30.11.82, S.I. Bechan Singh, again visited the spot and recorded the statements of Smt. Bahorna Bal Kisun alias Bahraichi, Smt. Rama Devi, P.W.3 Ram Awadh P.W.6, Sarwanand Gupta, and others. The investigation of this case was entrusted to P.W 7, Ram Rekha Pal, who was then posted as S.S.I. at P.S. Khalilabad, who after perusal of the case diary visited the district jail on 3.12.1982 and recorded the statement of accused Indra Jeet there and on completion of the investigation filed a charge-sheet, Ext. Ka-5 on 5.12.82. 9. The case was committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti to the Court of Sessions, vide its committal order dated 29.1.83. 10. The case of all the three accused was that of pure denial and false implication on account of their enmity with Ved Prakash Chaubey, and other residents of Maghar town. 11. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. They include P.W.1 Smt. Parwati Devi, the informant, and the main architect of this case, P.W.2, Achhey Lal, P.W. 3 Ram Awadh, P.W. 6 Swarwanand Gupta, all eye-witnesses P.W.4 Ravindra Singh, the scribe of the chik report and the general diary, P.W.5, Ram Daras Singh a constable, who alongwith Mahant Yadav, had taken the dead body of Purnwasi, to mortuary at Basti, P.W.7, S.S.I, Ram Rekha Pal, P.W.8, S.I. Bechan Singh, both the investigating Officers, and P.W.9 Dr. K.K. Tripathi, who on 14.11.82, at 3.30 p.m. had held the autopsy on the dead body of Purnwasi. K.K. Tripathi, who on 14.11.82, at 3.30 p.m. had held the autopsy on the dead body of Purnwasi. Besides, prosecution has also filed the affidavits of Sheo Kumar Mishra, Malkhana Moharrir, constable, Kashi Nath Mishra, who had brought the case properties from the police station and deposited it in Sadar Malkhana and one Satish Chandra Kharey, a clerk in the Chief Medical Office, Basti, who had dispatched the sample of blood soiled earth and the clothes of the deceased for chemical examination at Agra. 12. Accused were called upon to enter their defence but they have not led any evidence what-soever. 13. A bare perusal of the impugned judgement and order dated 16.8.1984 passed by the trial Court indicates that the accused appellant Indrajeet has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and two other co accused namely Ram Chet and Dileep Kumar were convicted under Section 352 IPC read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment only. 14. Challenging the impugned judgement and order of conviction, two other co accused namely Ram Chet and Dilep Kimar also preferred two criminal appeals No. 2440 of 1984 (Raj Chet v. State of U.P.) and 2425 of 1984 (Dileep Kumar v. State of U.P.) respectively. The appellant Dileep Kumar died during the pendency of his appeal, as such, the criminal appeal No. 2425 of 1984 filed by the Dileep Kumar stood dismissed as abated vide order dated 20.8.2007. Since no one had appeared on behalf of the appellant Ram Chet to argue his case, Mr. Brijesh Sahai, who was already appearing on behalf the main appellant Indrajeet, was appointed Amicus Curie to argue the Appeal No. 2440 of 1984 on behalf of Ram Chet. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that neither the scribe of the F.I.R. namely Ved Prakash Chaube was examined nor Jeth Bal Kishan, who was alleged to be present on the spot at the time of the occurrence was examined nor they accompanied the P.W. 1 (wife of the deceased), to the police station for lodging the F.I.R. It was further submitted that the presence of the witnesses on the spot is under the cloud of serious doubt and possibility of F.I.R. being ante timed cannot be ruled out. There are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which itself creates doubt upon the truthfulness and veracity of the prosecution story. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted as gospel truth, the offence would not travel beyond 304 I.P.C. and fall within exception 4 of Section 300 I.P.C. and the appellant Indrajeet at the most would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He further submitted that all the witnesses, being closely related to the P.W. 1, are all interested witnesses and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on their testimony. It was further submitted that the conduct and behaviour of the P.W. 1 clearly shows that she was not present on the spot because it was very unnatural and improbable that any lady, being present at the spot, would preserve her composure and calmness after the unnatural death of her husband and would further restrain herself from hugging and touching her husband after the incident. It was further submitted that the motive which has been assigned, is also very weak and no body from the in-laws side of the informant has turned up to support the case of the prosecution. The statement of P.W. 3, Ram Awadh under Section 161 CrPC was recorded after 15 days of the incident and delay in recording of the statement of this witness itself casts serious doubt about his presence on the spot and this fact itself shows that he has been set up falsely by the prosecution merely to make up the deficiencies of other witnesses of the prosecution. 17. Per contra, Mr. Rajeev Gupta, learned counsel for the State while opposing the appeal, supported the prosecution case and submitted that the prosecution has very successfully proved the case beyond the shadow of doubt. The incident had taken place at 6.30 p.m. in the month of November. The evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly shows that lantern was lit and there was sufficient light on the spot and, generally, people go to the hotel (Dhaba) after sun set for taking food, particularly when the hotel is located on the national high way where people come all 24 hours of the day. 18. It was further submitted that all the witnesses were natural witnesses and no infirmity has been pointed out in their evidence. 18. It was further submitted that all the witnesses were natural witnesses and no infirmity has been pointed out in their evidence. Despite extensive cross-examination, they supported the prosecution case in all material particulars and the defence has not been able to point any material discrepancy in their statement which may go to the root of the case and thus, all the three eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution are reliable and trustworthy witnesses and their testimony inspire confidence and have been rightly relied upon by the trial Court in recording the findings of conviction against the appellants. 19. He further submitted that merely recording of statement of one of the witnesses namely Ram Adahar (P.W. 3) fifteen days after the incident does not casts any doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. This witness was neither set up nor introduced by the I.O., rather, he was a natural witness who was very much present when the incident took place and his name had figured in the F.I.R. and the delay in recording his statement by the I.O., is very well explained by the P.W. 3 Ram Awadh himself. 20. It was further submitted that it has come on record that the sister in law of P.W. 1 had accompanied her to the police station and her presence has been noted by the police in the General Diary (G.D.) maintained by the police at the police station. Further, no dispute has been raised by the appellant that Rs. 30/- was not outstanding against the appellant Indrajeet. It has also come on record that the appellant Indrajeet was a history sheeter and about 20 criminal cases were pending against him and during the pendency of the present appeal, an affidavit was also filed giving details of the pendency of criminal cases against him and admittedly in few cases he was convicted. 21. Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Misra and Ms. Katyani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Sri Indra Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned A.G.A. representing the State. 22. According to the prosecution story, the hotel(Dhaba) where the incident took place, is situated in the heart of the Maghar town, a historical place situated to the east of police station Khalilabad at a distance of about 6 Kms. or little more. 22. According to the prosecution story, the hotel(Dhaba) where the incident took place, is situated in the heart of the Maghar town, a historical place situated to the east of police station Khalilabad at a distance of about 6 Kms. or little more. The said town Maghar lie on the National High way which connects Basti and Gorakhpur which passes through the middle of Maghar town and the venue of the incident i.e. the hotel of the deceased lies to the north of the National High Way. The said hotel was being run by the deceased alongwith his wife (P.W. 1) Parwati. According to the prosecution story, the incident took place at 6.30 p.m. when the deceased with his wife P.W. 1, Smt Parwati Devi, Ram Awadh P.W. 3, his brother in law (Sarhoo), Achhey Lal (P.W.2), his brother in law’s son and some customers including P.W. 6 Sarwanand were present at his hotel. The record further reveals that the F.I.R. was scribed by Ved Prakash Chaube at the instance of the informant (P.W.1). Thereafter, the P.W. 1 alongwith her Jethani went to the police station, which was around 8 Km. away from the place of the incident in a Jeep and the F.I.R. was registered and entry to that effect was made in the relevant diary maintained by the police at the police station. The presence of the Jethani of the informant was also noted in the case diary. Thereafter the I.O. swung into action and reached the place of occurrence and completed all the formalities as required under the law. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was done on 14.11.1982 at 3.30 p.m. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased : “Gun shot wound 3.0 cm x 2.5 cm x chest cavity deep on the left side chest lateral to the mid line 2.00 cm. below the media level of the left clavicle bone. Margins are inverted blackening, tattooing, and charring present. Directed backward laterally wound of entry.” 23. The appellant has not disputed the injuries so caused to the deceased. 24. The prosecution produced following witnesses : 1. Smt. Parwati (P.W.1), wife of the deceased. 2. Achhey Lal (P.W. 2), nephew of P.W.1 3. Ram Awadh (P.W. 3), brother in law (Jija) of P.W.1 4. Ravendra Singh (P.W. 4), 5. Ram Daras Singh (P.W.5) 6. The appellant has not disputed the injuries so caused to the deceased. 24. The prosecution produced following witnesses : 1. Smt. Parwati (P.W.1), wife of the deceased. 2. Achhey Lal (P.W. 2), nephew of P.W.1 3. Ram Awadh (P.W. 3), brother in law (Jija) of P.W.1 4. Ravendra Singh (P.W. 4), 5. Ram Daras Singh (P.W.5) 6. Sarvanand (P.W. 6), one of the customers, who was having food at the hostel at the time of the incident. 7. Ram Rekha Pal (P.W.7) 8. Bechan Singh (P.W. 8) 9. Dr. K. K. Tripathi (P.W. 9) 25. Apart from the above witnesses, the other witnesses including I.O. were also produced before the Court for the purpose of getting their statements recorded before the trial Court. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that out of the four eye-witnesses, three witnesses are close relatives of the deceased, as such they are interested witnesses and, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon their testimony. We do not see any substance in the argument so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Undisputedly, out of four witnesses, three witnesses were namely Achhey Lal (P.W.2) son of the brother in law of the deceased, Ram Awadh(P.W. 3), brother in law (Sarhoo) of the deceased and Smt. Parwati Devi (P.W.1), the widow of the deceased. Merely because of the fact that the aforesaid witnesses were closely related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. It is a well-settled law that in the cases of heinous offences, only interested and relative witnesses turn up and independent witnesses, oftenly, remain reluctant to appear for giving their evidence because of the fear to procure enmity with the person against whom they have to depose and it is a matter of common experience that interested witnesses show their curiosity in bringing the real culprits to book. 27. The law is very much clear on this aspect. Time and again, the Apex Court has laid down that the evidence of witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is an interested or partisan witness or closely related to the victim, if it is otherwise to be trustworthy and credible. It only requires scrutiny with more care and caution so that neither the guilty escapes nor the innocent wrongly convicted. It only requires scrutiny with more care and caution so that neither the guilty escapes nor the innocent wrongly convicted. If on such scrutiny, evidence is found to be reliable and probable, it can be acted upon, if it is found to be improbable or suspicious, it ought to be rejected. Here, in the present case, we find that the trial Court, after thorough scrutiny of the evidence and weighing the testimony of the witnesses, has recorded its categorical findings to that effect and we do not see that the findings so recorded by the trial Court suffer from any legal infirmity. Thus, we do not find any substance in the argument so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 28. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the conduct and behaviour of P.W. 1 (wife of the deceased) after the incident was very unnatural because no lady after murder of her husband in her presence would gain composure and restrain herself from hugging and touching her husband and this fact itself shows that she was not present on the spot when the incident took place and there was no occasion for her to go the police station for lodging FIR. We do not see any substance in this argument too because it has come on record that immediately after the incident, a doctor was called to diagnose the deceased who declared him dead. Under these circumstances, it was but natural that no body would have touched that portion of the body where the deceased had sustained gun shot injuries. It has also come on record that the P.W. 1 used to clean the utensils and attend the customers herself and the hotel of the deceased where the incident had occurred was being run in a “Chhappar” and this fact itself suggests that it was a very small hotel established with nominal investment and was very much natural for the victim to have managed its affairs with the help of his family members. It is also worth mentioning that usually such ladies who run the Hotel where a large number of people come for food and refreshment are usually very bold, daring and independent and cannot be equated with a pardanasin lady who remains confined within the four walls of the house without any concern for the outside world, and, therefore, conduct of the P.W. 1 to lodge F.I.R. at the police station herself does not in any way casts any doubt upon her presence on the place of the occurrence. It has come on record that the P.W. 1 had gone to the police station alongwith her Jethani for lodging F.I.R. and entry to that effect has also been made in the relevant diary maintained by the police at the police station. It is also notable that the incident took place at 6.30 p.m. in the month of November, i.e. the winter season and in that month the period between 6 to 8 p.m. would have been the peak hours of the hotel located on the national high way. Thus, the presence of the P.W. 1 and other eye-witnesses at the time of incident appears to be quite natural and probable. 29. So far as recording of delayed statement of P.W. 3 Ramawadh is concerned, it is to be noted that he is one of the customers of the hotel of the deceased and was present on the spot while the incident took place and the I.O. has explained the circumstances under which there was some delay in recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and mere delay of 15-16 days in recording his statement will not affect and damage the case of the prosecution. 30. The testimony of P.W. 2 and 3 also inspire confidence and no infirmity can be found in their testimonies. Some minor contradictions in the statement of such rustic witnesses like the P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 while deposing in the Court, after lapse of a considerable period of time of the incident, are bound to creep in their evidence and the same being a very minor contradiction,it does not dilutes the testimony of the witnesses as well as the case of the prosecution and the accused persons cannot get benefit of such minor contradictions. Thus, we do not find any force in the submission so made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 31. So far as the next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Jeth of P.W. 1 was not examined by the prosecution, hence it weakened the case, is concerned, we are not impressed by the argument so made by him because non recording of the statement of Jeth of the P.W. 1, who is alleged to have remained present at the time of incident does not affect or defeat the case of the prosecution particularly when other eye-witnesses have elaborately narrated the entire incident by taking the names of the accused whom they knew earlier. The law does not say that the prosecution must examine all the eye-witnesses cited by the prosecution. When the evidence of three other eye-witnesses was found to be worthy of acceptance and credence to prove the case then it was not necessary for the prosecution to examine any more eye-witnesses. Moreover, It is absolutely for the prosecution to decide as to how many and who should be examined as their witnesses for proving their case. We, therefore, find no merit in the submission so made by the learned counsel for the appellant and is accordingly rejected. 32. The next submission of the appellant was that the F.I.R. was ante timed because it was quite impossible for the P.W. 1 to have lodged F.I.R. within such a short span of time i.e. within 1.15 hours at the police station which is about 8 Kms. away from the place of the incident. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the incident took place at 6.30 p.m. the F.I.R. was lodged at 7.45 p.m. after due consultation and deliberation under the guidance of the I.O.. Moreover, no other case other than the present one, was lodged after lodging of the present case at the police station on that date. The argument so made is totally misconceived and is liable to be rejected. It has come on record that the hotel is situated on the national high way and the P.W.1 had gone to the police station alongwith her Jethani on a Jeep and she returned to the spot by the same jeep. The argument so made is totally misconceived and is liable to be rejected. It has come on record that the hotel is situated on the national high way and the P.W.1 had gone to the police station alongwith her Jethani on a Jeep and she returned to the spot by the same jeep. Presence of her Jethani alongwith PW 1 at the time of lodging of FIR was also noted in the relevant general diary maintained by the police at the police station. The Head Moharrir also duly proved the F.I.R. Ext Ka-2. The F.I.R. was scribed by one Ved Prakash Chaube at the instance of P.W.1. There is nothing on record to show that the F.I.R. was ante timed or it was lodged after consultation and deliberation. No dispute has been raised by the appellant regarding the money which was due against the appellant. 33. Lastly, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that even if the prosecution case is accepted as gospel truth, the case of the appellant would fall within the ambit of Exception 4 of Section 300 I.P.C. and at the most it can be said that it was a culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The submission so made by the learned counsel for the appellant is again wholly misconceived and has no legs to stand and is liable to be rejected outrightly. 34. In order to appreciate the aforesaid argument, at this stage, it would be relevant to go through the provisions contained under Exception 4 of Section 300 I.P.C. which runs as under: “Exception 4—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation—it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. 35. Here, in the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the accused received any sudden provocation from the victims. P.W. 1 simply had asked the appellant Indrajeet to clear off the arrears of Rs. Explanation—it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. 35. Here, in the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the accused received any sudden provocation from the victims. P.W. 1 simply had asked the appellant Indrajeet to clear off the arrears of Rs. 30/- only which was due against him and when the deceased supported the demand of his wife (P.W.1), the accused became infuriated and the co accused Ram Chet and Dilip exhorted saying that the deceased had gone mad and, upon their exhortation, the appellant Indrajeet whipped out a country made pistol and fired at the deceased Purnwasi from a close range hitting him on his left chest just below his collar bone resulting in his instantaneous death. The appellant caused fire-arm injury on the vital part of the body of the deceased which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 36. Thus, neither there was any quarrel nor any heated exchange of words took place before the incident, there was no occasion at all for the appellant Indrajeet to kill the deceased. From the conduct of the appellant Indrajeet, it is very much apparent that he had acted in a very cruel and unusual manner causing fatal injuries to the deceased resulting in his instantaneous death which can very easily be termed as cruel or unusual and thereby disentitling the appellant to claim the benefit of the Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. On the contrary, cogent and overwhelming evidence has been led by the prosecution establishing the case under Section 302 I.P.C. As against the appellant Indrajeet and also against the appellant Ram Chet under Section 353 I.P.C. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the said offence for which they have been convicted and sentenced is not established beyond reasonable doubt against them. Thus, we are unable to persuade ourselves to interfere in the judgment of the conviction or even in the order of sentence for that matter 37. In view of the above elaborate reasoning, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals. The same are therefore rejected. 38. Thus, we are unable to persuade ourselves to interfere in the judgment of the conviction or even in the order of sentence for that matter 37. In view of the above elaborate reasoning, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals. The same are therefore rejected. 38. Considering the entire aspects of the matter and looking to the circumstances, under which the present offence has been committed, we are of the view that the impugned judgement and order passed by the trial Court is well thought and well discussed and the trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the impugned judgement and order passed by the trial Court against the accused appellant Indrajeet is liable to be upheld and the appeal (No. 2562 of 1984) filed by him having no force is liable to be dismissed. 39. Accordingly the Criminal Appeal No. 2562 of 1984 filed by the appellant Indrajeet is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused appellant Indrajeet vide impugned judgement and order dated 16.8.1984 is hereby confirmed. The accused appellant Indrajeet is in jail. He shall remain in jail to serve out the remaining sentence. 40. So far as the appellant Ramchet is concerned, we find that the trial Court convicted him awarding a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three months only and the present appeal is pending since last 30 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of sentence awarded against the appellant Ramchet, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the appellant’s sentence must be reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 41. In the circumstances, the appeal No. 2440 of 1984 filed by Ram Chet is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant Ramchet under Section 302 I.P.C. is maintained but the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. His personal and surety bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties are discharged from their liability. 42. Copy of this judgement alongwith lower Court record be sent to the Sessions Judge, Basti forthwith for compliance. 43. Since Mr. His personal and surety bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties are discharged from their liability. 42. Copy of this judgement alongwith lower Court record be sent to the Sessions Judge, Basti forthwith for compliance. 43. Since Mr. Brijesh Sahai rendered his valuable and able assistance to the Court in disposing of the present appeals by appearing as an Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant Ram Chet also, we direct the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee to pay a sum of Rs. 15000/- (Rupees fifteen thousands only).