JUDGMENT Hon'ble Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J.—Heard Shri U.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Izhar Husain learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge Unnao dated 5.8.1981 in Session Trial No. 496 of 1980, State v. Ashok Kumar, under Section 302 I.P.C., case crime No. 279 of 1978, Police Station Achalganj, District Unnao whereby learned trial Court has convicted accused appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 3. According to the prosecution version, complainant Jag Mohan and deceased Ramadhin are real brothers. Litigation is pending between Ramadhin and Mahadeo, Raja Ram Pasi, Shiv Das Pasi, Ramesh Chandra Tewari. Proceeding under Section 107 CrPC are also pending in the Court. Ramadhin has lodged a complaint under Section 133 CrPC against Mahadeo and proceedings for removal of encroachment in the galiyara were pending in Court. 11.9.1978 was fixed for hearing in that case. Ramadhin had gone to attend the case alongwith Sheo Charan and Mohan Nai. Since the opposite parties were trying to attack the Ramadhin, hence, as and when Ramadhin goes to Unnao complainant Jag Mohan used to go to the station to receive him. 4. On 11.9.1978 complainant Jag Mohan reached Rawatpur railway station at about 05.00 p.m. Train arrived at Rawatpur railway station at about sunset time. Complainant, his brother Ramadhin, Mohan Nai and Sheo Charan proceeded together for their village through left patri of Itauli minor canal. When they reached near the Har of Pancham where a trunk of tree was kept on the canal for the purpose of crossing it, accused Ashok Kumar also joined them. Ashok Kumar was behind Ramadhin. When they reached near the field of Bhabhuti Kori then Ashok Kumar fired two shots upon Ramadhin with pistol. Complainant alongwith Sheo Charan, Mohan got frightened and fled away when the accused again fired a third shot from his pistol. Complainant reached Bhadohi and narrated story. Thereafter he came on the place of occurrence alongwith some other people. Complainant gave the written report at the police station on 11.9.1978 at 11:45 p.m. which was recorded and case under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered against the accused. Investigation was handed over to the Investigating Officer. Complainant reached Bhadohi and narrated story. Thereafter he came on the place of occurrence alongwith some other people. Complainant gave the written report at the police station on 11.9.1978 at 11:45 p.m. which was recorded and case under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered against the accused. Investigation was handed over to the Investigating Officer. Inquest proceedings began on 12.9.1978 at 09.00 a.m. and concluded at 11.30 a.m. Dead body was sent for post-mortem which was conducted on 13.9.1978 at 03.00 p.m. Kurta baniyan Angauchha baton were collected from the dead body. Blood stained and plain earth was also collected from the place of occurrence. An empty cartridge and tikli were also recovered from place of occurrence. Statement of witness were recorded and site plan was drawn. Accused surrendered in Court on 15.9.1978. After conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused. 5. Charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution has produced PW-1 Jagmohan brother of the deceased and complainant PW-2 Sri Mohan who is one of the persons who were accompanying the deceased to Unnao on the date of occurrence and was returning with him when the incident took place. 7. PW-3 Dr S.M. Tripathi had conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 13.9.1978 at 03.00 p.m. and found following ante-mortem injuries on the body : (i) Circular lacerated wound 1 “ in diameter on the right side back in outer scapular region. Margins inverted. Blackening and charring present. (ii) Circular lacerated wound 1" in diameter on right side back lower part of right scapular region, chest cavity deep. Margins inverted. Blackening and charring present. (iii) Multiple abrasions in an area of 2" x 1/2" on left back scapular region. (iv) Four cicculare lacerated wounds each 1/5" in diameter. Margins everted. No blackening or charring present on the chest 2" above the right nipple in an area of 2 1/2". It was exit wound of injury No. 2. On internal examination the trachea was found full of b lood and right lung was lacerated by shots. The stomach was empty but the small intestine contained digested food and the large intestine contained faecal matter. During post-mortem 42 small pellets, two large pellets and two pieces of wadding were recovered from the body. On internal examination the trachea was found full of b lood and right lung was lacerated by shots. The stomach was empty but the small intestine contained digested food and the large intestine contained faecal matter. During post-mortem 42 small pellets, two large pellets and two pieces of wadding were recovered from the body. In the opinion of the doctor death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries. 8. According to Dr. Injury No. 1 and 2 were caused by firearm from a close range within three or four feet, injury No. 4 was exit wound of injury No. 2 while injury No. 3 could have been caused by fall on some hard surface. According to doctor, duration of death was about two days. 9. PW-4 S.I. Ran Vijai Singh is Investigating Officer. In the statement under Section 313 CrPC accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Deceased was a hardened criminal who was involved in different cases. DW-1 Ramesh Chander is produced in defence who has stated that a Train No. 2 RC reached Tikli Rawatpur at 07.15 p.m. and departed at 07.18 p.m. 10. After conclusion of the evidence on the application of prosecution CW-1 B.N. Basak Station Master Bighapur Railway Station was produced who has stated that on 11.9.1978 Train No. 2 RC arrived at Bighapur station at 06.45 p.m. and left at 06.55 p.m. A passenger train takes about 25 minutes time to reach Bighapur from Rawatpur Tikauli. 11. After appreciation of evidence on record learned trial Court had given categorical finding that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Evidnece of witnesses is fully reliable. Accordingly learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. First information report is ante time and ante dated. No independent witness has been examined. Rather interested witnesses have been examined whose evidence could not be believed. It is further submitted that there was no motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased. Prosecution story as narrated is fully unreliable. First information report is ante time and ante dated. No independent witness has been examined. Rather interested witnesses have been examined whose evidence could not be believed. It is further submitted that there was no motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased. Prosecution story as narrated is fully unreliable. Deceased died during dead hours of night by some unknown person because he was a man of criminal nature and was hardened criminal, that is why inquest proceedings were conducted on the next day at 09.00a.m. and the post-mortem was conducted on third day,i.e., 13.9.1978 at 03.00 p.m. It is further submitted that if there would have been any motive for accused to commit the murder of the deceased then there was no reason to believe that deceased would walk with the accused on his side. 13. Per contra learned A.G.A. has submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are fully reliable. There is no delay in lodging F.I.R. It is a case of direct evidence wherein there is no requirement to prove the motive. Nonetheless, motive is proved by the prosecution. There was sufficient light to identify the accused at the time of occurrence. 14. Before proceeding with the case we would like to deal with the medico legal aspect of the matter. Occurrence had taken place on 11.9.1978 at about 11:45 p.m.. Post-mortem examination of the body of deceased was done on 13.9.1978 at 03.00 p.m. by PW-3 Dr. S.M. Tripathi. The two shots which hit the deceased were fired from a very close range. Right lung was completely lacerated. One of the shot had crossed the body through and through which was an exit wound of injruy No. 2. According to Dr. Tripathi duration of death was about two days. Injury No. 1 and 2 were caused by a firearm from a close range within three or four feet while injury No. 4 was the exit would of injury No. 2 From the nature of injuries it is clear that the deceased died due to gun shot injuries caused with intention to cause the death of deceased. 15. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the evidence of PW-1 Jag Mohan and PW-2 Sri Mohan is worth reliance and fully reliable or not. 15. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the evidence of PW-1 Jag Mohan and PW-2 Sri Mohan is worth reliance and fully reliable or not. Learned trial Court has given a finding that the evidence of these two witnesses is fully reliable. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that PW-1 is the real brother of the deceased who is an interested witness while the PW-2 Sri Mohan is a partisan and chance witness. Their evidence could not be relied upon. 16. Before dealing with these two witnesses, we would like to refer the relevant legal proposition on the subject. In Nand Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh, (2015) 1 SCC 766, Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that evidence of eye-witnesses could not be disbelieved merely on the ground that they are the close relatives of the deceased. Hon’ble the Apex Court has referred in Namdev v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 , wherein it was held in para 38 that : “38.............. it is clear that a close relative cannot be characterized as an ‘interested’ witness. He is a ‘natural’ witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinised carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the ‘sole’ testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one.” 17. If we examine the evidence of PW-1 Jag Mohan it is admitted that he is the real brother of the deceased. Definitely he is an interested witness but his evidence has to be scrutinized with caution. It is clear that at the time of incident Jag Mohan, Sri Mohan and one Sheo Charan were accompanying the deceased when accused also joined them. It has come in the evidence that there was no independent witness present at the place of occurrence. Out of the three persons present prosecution has produced Jag Mohan and Sri Mohan. It is clear that at the time of incident Jag Mohan, Sri Mohan and one Sheo Charan were accompanying the deceased when accused also joined them. It has come in the evidence that there was no independent witness present at the place of occurrence. Out of the three persons present prosecution has produced Jag Mohan and Sri Mohan. At this stage, we would like to infer that even if Sheo Charan is not produced by the prosecution it will not adversely affect the prosecution version because even if Sheo Charan would have been produced by the prosecution it could have just multiplied the number of witnesses. It is settled legal position that it is not the quantity but the quality of the evidence has to be looked into by the Court. On this point reference may be made to the pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sudip Kr. Sen and others v. State of West Bengal and others, MANU/SC/0013/2016 and has observed in para 12 as under : “Observing that there is no impediment for recording conviction based on the testimony of a single witness provided it is reliable in Prithipal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, MANU/SC/1292/2011 : (2012) 1 SCC 10 , it was observed as under: 49. This Court has consistently held that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the Court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number or the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent Court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. It is, therefore, open to a competent Court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. [See Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 , Sunil Kumar v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 11 SCC 367, Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B., (2010) 12 SCC 91 ].” 46. On this point reference may also be made to the pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deny Bora v. State of Assam, (2014) 14 SCC 22 and has observed in para 14 as under : “As we find, the conviction wholly rests on the sole testimony of PW-14. It is well-settled in law that conviction can be based on the testimony of a singular witness. It has been held in Sunil Kumar v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2003) 11 SCC 367, that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But, if there are doubts about the testimony the Courts will insist on corroboration. The same principle has been reiterated in Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 , by stating that it is open to a competent Court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction, if the quality of the witness makes the testimony acceptable.” 18. PW-1 Jag Mohan has stated that whenever Ramadhin used to go to Unnao in connection with his cases and used to return in the evening by train Jagmohan used to reach Rawatpur Tikauli Railway Station to receive him and to accompany him to home. This is because he was having an apprehension that something wrong may be done with Ramadhin as he was involved in number of cases. On the fateful day also Jag Mohan went to the railway station to receive Ramadhin. This is because he was having an apprehension that something wrong may be done with Ramadhin as he was involved in number of cases. On the fateful day also Jag Mohan went to the railway station to receive Ramadhin. So far as question of Jag Mohan is concerned, it was a natural conduct that being the brother of the deceased he was seriously concerned about his well being. He was having full knowledge that certain criminal cases and other cases are pending against Ramadhin and he may be attacked by anyone if he is found all alone. This was the reason that Jag Mohan used to accompany the deceased whenever he goes to Unnao and returned in the evening by train. On the fateful day also Jag Mohan was not knowing that Sri Mohan and Sheo Charan were also accompanying the deceased in the train and they would also come back to their houses alongwith Ramadhin deceased. Hence, presence of Jag Mohan at the railway station is quite natural. Learned trial Court has given a categorical finding that the train which was scheduled to reach Rawatpur Tikauli at 06.10 p.m. had reached by 06.15 p.m. or 06.20 p.m.. Learned trial Court has also taken a judicial notice of the fact that on the fateful day as shown in the ‘jantri’ sunset time was 06.30 p.m.. It means that at the time of arrival of the train at the railway station sun was not set. Just after reaching at the station Jag Mohan alongwith Sheo Charan, Sri Mohan and deceased proceeded for village. It took about 20-25 minutes to reach at the place of occurrence, which means that they reached the place of occurrence at about 06.40 p.m. but even if the sun might have accordingly set at that time, there would be sufficient light to enable the witnesses to see and recognize the accused, particularly when he is also a resident of same village and had walked with them for about 150 paces before firing the shots from the pistol. 19. First Information Report was lodged on the same day at 11.45 p.m. while the distance of police station was six miles. 19. First Information Report was lodged on the same day at 11.45 p.m. while the distance of police station was six miles. According to PW-1, Jag Mohan after the incident he ran away from the place of occurrence and went to his village and again came back with villagers then he got the report scribed from Krishna Kumar Shukla and handed over the same at the police station. Inquest proceedings began on 12.9.1978 at 09:00 a.m. and concluded on 12.9.1978 at 11:30 a.m.. Thereafter, dead body was sealed and sent for post-mortem which took place on next day at 03:00 p.m.. PW-4 Shri Ran Vijai Singh, Investigating Officer has stated that he was busy in the investigation of Case Crime No. 278 under Section 302, 201 I.P.C. When First Information Report was lodged at the police station. He was not present at the police station at that time. Papers of this case were handed over to him on 12.9.1978 at about 4 a.m. by Satyendra Kumar Shukla then he reached at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of complainant and conducted the inquest proceedings. Hence there was no delay in conducting the inquest proceedings. 20. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that there are some cuttings in the time of occurrence mentioned in the inquest report. Apart from it, in the inquest report distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is shown as ten kilometers while in the First Information Report it is mentioned as six miles. It is further submitted that the post-mortem was conducted on the next day which shows that the report is ante time and ante dated. Attention is also drawn towards challan lash wherein also there are certain cuttings in the time of occurrence. We are not impressed with the argument. Purpose of inquest report is very limited. It was held in Madhu alias Madhuranath and another v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 419 , that “The object of the inquest proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under unnatural circumstances or an unnatural death and if so, what is the cause of death. More so, the inquest report is not a piece of substantive evidence and can be utilised only for contradicting the witnesses to the inquest examined during the trial. More so, the inquest report is not a piece of substantive evidence and can be utilised only for contradicting the witnesses to the inquest examined during the trial. Neither the inquest report nor the post-mortem report can be termed as basic or substantive evidence and thus, any discrepancy occurring therein cannot be termed as fatal or suspicious circumstance which would warran tbenefit of doubt to the accused.” Same view was taken in Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P., (1975) 4 SCC 153 , Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P., (1978) 2 SCC 518 , Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 1, George v. State of Kerala, (1998) 4 SCC 605 , Suresh Rai v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 84 and Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 351 . 21. Even if distance is mentioned in the kilometers in the inquest proceedings while in the chik F.I.R. Distance is mentioned in miles it does not make any room for doubt. Certain cuttings are also there which do not cast any shadow over merit of the matter. According to the post-mortem report duration of death was about two days which coincides with the time of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution, hence, we do not find any force in the argument that First Information Report is ante-timed or ante-dated. 22. PW-1 Jag Mohan has given a very natural statement. He reached at the railway station to receive his brother who accompanied him alongwith Sri Mohan and Sheo Charan. On the way accused also joined them who was known to them. It has come in the evidence that accused is known to them. Parvesh is brother of accused and litigation was pending between deceased Ramadhin and Pravesh and others. Proceedings under Section 107, 116 CrPC were also launched in that regard, hence, when Ashok Kumar was previously known to the deceased as well as witnesses and on the way he also joined them, there was nothing abnormal in it. All of a sudden Ashok Kumar fired a shot from his pistol on the back of deceased who was going ahead of him. Again a fire was shot and witnesses ran away from the place of occurrence. A third fire was also shot but it could not hit anyone. Theory of firing two shots by the accused finds full corroboration from the evidence of Dr. Again a fire was shot and witnesses ran away from the place of occurrence. A third fire was also shot but it could not hit anyone. Theory of firing two shots by the accused finds full corroboration from the evidence of Dr. S.M. Tripathi PW-3 and post-mortem report. Presence of PW-1 Jag Mohan at the place of occurrence is also fully corroborated and proved by the evidence on record. 23. At this stage, we examine the veracity of the statement of PW-2 Sri Mohan. We found that there was some inimical relationship between him and the accused but that was an old issue. Papers of enmity of PW-2 Sri Mohan with the accused have been filed which shows that Kamlesh Chandra brother of accused was a witness against Mahabir father of Sri Mohan in a case under Section 183 Z.A. Act but the jdugment of that case shows that the case was between Mahadeo and Mahabir who were real brothers. In that case Kamlesh Chandra has deposed about the relationship of Mahadeo, Mahabir and their brother Beni Madhav who died issueless. Kamlesh Chandra has nowhere deposed anything against father of Sri Mohan. 24. Presence of PW-2 Sri Mohan at the place of occurrence is assailed on the ground that Hari Mohan brother of Sri Mohan was murdered. In that case deceased Ramadhin was an accused, hence, it is not possible that Ramadhin would accompany Sri Mohan. This argument does not find favour from the learned trial Court. A perusal of the judgment of sessions trial No. 159 of 1964 State v. Mahadeo and others, decided by second Additional Sessions Judge Unnao on 28.11.1964 shows that in that case the main role of murder was assigned to Mahadeo, the brother of Mahabir and Chaturbhuj and Jagdeo sons of Mahadeo and Sundar Bai wife of Mahadeo. Against Ramadhin the only allegation was that he was a friend and associate of Mahadeo and was present at the med of the field with a lathi. This incident took place in 1964 wherein all the accused were acquitted. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 107, 116 Cr.P.C. were launched against Mahadeo and Ramadhin. Name of Sri Mohan finds place as a witness alongwith Ramadhin in the other party which was rival to the party of Mahadeo and his sons. This incident took place in 1964 wherein all the accused were acquitted. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 107, 116 Cr.P.C. were launched against Mahadeo and Ramadhin. Name of Sri Mohan finds place as a witness alongwith Ramadhin in the other party which was rival to the party of Mahadeo and his sons. Further in the police report dated 10.8.1978, exhibit kha-7 it is mentioned that Mohan, nephew of Mahadeo was murdered wherein Ramadhin and others were accused which was acquitted. In the proceedings under Section 133 CrPC Ramadhin and Mahaveer father of Sri Mohan figured together as applicants against Mahadeo and his sons. It is clear that since 1976 when Ramadhin and Mahabir filed an application under Section 133 CrPC jointly against Mahadeo and his sons, Ramadhin and Mahabir and his sons became friendly with each other. On the date of incident case under Section 133 Cr PC was fixed under hearing. It was quite natural for Sri Mohan to accompany the deceased to Unnao, hence, presence of PW-2 Sri Mohan alongwith deceased cannot be doubted in any manner. His evidence is also fully reliable. 25. Presence of PW-1 Jag Mohan and PW-2 Sri Mohan at the place of occurrence is proved. Apart from this, direct evidence of murder committed by the accused is also on record in the shape of Statement of PW-1 Jag Mohan and PW-2 Sri Mohan. In Gopal Singh v. State of U.P., (1978) 3 SCC 327 , it was held that : “11. ............................ True, they were interested witnesses, related to the deceased. Far from undermining the circumstances of the case, it guaranteed the truth of their testimony. Being relations they would be the least disposed to falsely implicate the appellant, or substitute him in place of real culprit. In short, the murder charges had been proved to the hilt against the appellant.” 39. Further in Bhagwan Dass v. State of Rajasthan, (1974) 4 SCC 781 , it was observed in paragraph 11 of the Apex Court that : “11...................... It is also difficult to believe that Chunki would spare the real assailant and falsely mention the name of the accused as a person who was responsible for the injuries caused to her and the three deceased persons. It is also difficult to believe that Chunki would spare the real assailant and falsely mention the name of the accused as a person who was responsible for the injuries caused to her and the three deceased persons. Chunki, it may be stated, has not been shown to have any animus against the accused.” Hence, we are of the view that the presence of prosecution witnesses at the place of occurrence is fully established. Their evidence is fully reliable. 26. Learned counsel for the accused argued that there was no motive for the commission of crime by the accused. It is a case of direct evidence. It is settled legal position that in a case of direct evidence motive loses its importance. It was held in Habib v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 12 SCC 568 , by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if there is direct and trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to the commission of offence, the motive part loses its significance. Ocular testimony of witnesses cannot be discarded only by reason of absence of motive, if otherwise, evidence is worthy of credence. In Subodh Nath and another v. State of Tripura, (2013) 4 SCC 122 , it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that motive becomes relevant as an additional circumstance in a case where prosecution seeks to prove the guilt by circumstantial evidence only. But if there is direct evidence against the accused having committed offence, motive becomes irrelevant. Reference may also be made to Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 476 . It was held in Sanjeev v. State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 387 , that “It is settled principle of law that, to establish commission of murder by an accused, motive is not required to be proved. Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention. The intention can be formed even at the place of incident at the time of commission of crime. It is only either intention of knowledge on the part of the accused which is required to be seen in respect of the offence of culpable homicide. In order to read either intention or knowledge, the Courts have to examine the circumstances, as there cannot be any direct evidence as to the state of mind of the accused.” 27. It is only either intention of knowledge on the part of the accused which is required to be seen in respect of the offence of culpable homicide. In order to read either intention or knowledge, the Courts have to examine the circumstances, as there cannot be any direct evidence as to the state of mind of the accused.” 27. Further learned trial Court has given a categorical finding that there was sufficient motive for Ashok Kumar to commit the crime. Learned trial Court has held that from the evidence exhibit kha-7 filed by the accused it appears that in the proceedings under Section 107/116 CrPC Parmesh Chandra who is the brother of the accused is also one of the opposite parties alongwith Mahadeo, Sheo Dass, Raja Ram and others. Real dispute of galiyara was between Ramadhin and Mahadeo and his sons but the fact remains that from the defence evidence itself it is clear that proceedings under Section 107/116 CrPC were also pending against the brother of the accused and deceased. Specific motive was alleged in the First Information Report in the document exhibit kha 7 filed by the accused which is copy of police report under Section 107, 116 CrPC. It appears that the name of Parmesh Chandra Tewari who is brother of the accused is shown as one of the parties. Although the main dispute of Ramadhin regarding the galiyara was with Mahadeo and his sons but Parmesh Chandra brother of the accused Ashok Kumar was also arrayed in the party of Mahadeo in the proceedings under Section 107/116 CrPC which was drawn up as a consequence of this dispute. It shows that there was a motive for the accused for commission of the crime. 28. Place of occurrence was mentioned near field of Bhabhuti Kori. In the site plan place of incident shown by letter ‘A’ which is on the Northeast side of the Itauli minor canal and towards South of the field of Bhabhuti. Investigating Officer has recovered the empty cartridges, tikli from the place of occurrence and prepared the recovery memo. No suggestion was given to the witness that the place of occurrence has been shown wrongly. We do not find any force in the argument that place of occurrence has been changed. There is a consistent evidence on record about the place of occurrence. No suggestion was given to the witness that the place of occurrence has been shown wrongly. We do not find any force in the argument that place of occurrence has been changed. There is a consistent evidence on record about the place of occurrence. Further defence in so many words has not changed the place of occurrence during trial, rather it is said that the deceased was killed during dead hours of night by some unknown persons, hence, we are of the view that place of occurrence is also established. 29. After considering all the aspects and evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the charges levelled agianst the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on reocrd. We do not find any illegality, in the impugned findings. Accordingly appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Accused is on bail. His bail is cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. 30. Office is directed to certify this order to the learned trial Court to ensure compliance. Office is further directed to transmit the lower Court record forthwith. ———————