JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.05.2007 and 07.05.2007 respectively passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Koderma, in Sessions Trial No.71 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the court having found the appellant guilty for committing murder, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo R.I. for one year and further convicted him under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of the payment of fine, directed to undergo R.I. for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.08.2000 at about 7 p.m. while the informant was returning home after performing 'Krishna Astami Pooja', she heard alarm raised by her husband-Birendra Mahto (deceased), who was saying Munshi Mahto (appellant) had opened fire at him and he was being followed by Munshi. The informant found bleeding injury on the person of her husband and he told that Munshi Mahto shot him at Tand and he was coming behind him. Thereafter the informant with her husband came inside the house and closed the door. In the meantime, Munshi Mahto (appellant) also reached to the place and hide behind the door. Later on, the informant at the request of her husband opened the door. No sooner, she opened the door, Munshi Mahto (appellant) suddenly emerged and forcibly entered inside the room and shot fire aiming on the chest of her husband (deceased). After receiving the shot, her husband fell down and became senseless. On receiving such information, Ashok Kumar Singh, Sub Inspector of Police, Koderma came and recorded 'fardbeyan' of the informant at sub-divisional Hospital, Koderma in which she narrated about the incident, as has been, stated above. 3. On the basis of aforesaid 'fardbeyan' Koderma P.S. Case No.304 of 2000 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act, against the appellant. 4. After registering the case, the investigation was carried out and after preparing the inquest report of the deceased, the dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination and Dr. 4. After registering the case, the investigation was carried out and after preparing the inquest report of the deceased, the dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination and Dr. Sirajuddin who conducted autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased, found the following antemortem injuries:- “(i) A gun-shot wound below the right nostril directing backward and downward causing exit-wound in the neck just below the angle of the mandible right side. (ii) An entry wound right side of the chest caused by bullet.” The Doctor issued post-mortem examination report with an opinion that the death occurs due to gun-shot injuries. 5. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and his mother, Mostt. Balia and cognizance of the offence was taken. In due course, when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant as well as his mother, Mostt. Balia were put on trial. 6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 11 witnesses including the investigating officer (P.W.7) and the compounder (P.W.8). Out of whom, P.W.1 is Mohan Mahto; P.W.2 is Jiria Devi; P.W.3-Kaushli Devi is the informant and wife of the deceased; P.W.4 is Mohini Devi, P.W.5 is Vijay Kumar; P.W.6 is Ajai Kumar; P.W.7-Ashok Kumar Singh is the investigating officer; P.W.8-Kaushalendra Kumar is the Compounder; P.W.9 is Basudeo Mahato; P.W.10 is Baso Mahto and P.W.11-Dwarika Mahto. P.W.3-informant is the wife of the deceased, who has narrated the entire story and has alleged that the appellant inflicted gun-short injuries on the person of the deceased, as a result of which, he died. 7. The defence examined two witnesses i.e. D.W.1 and D.W.2 who was the master of the appellant and exhibited three documents. 8. The trial court after appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on record, found the appellant guilty for committing murder of the deceased and accordingly, recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant and his mother, Mostt. Balia, which is under challenge. 9. Based upon the evidence of the informant, Mr. 8. The trial court after appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on record, found the appellant guilty for committing murder of the deceased and accordingly, recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant and his mother, Mostt. Balia, which is under challenge. 9. Based upon the evidence of the informant, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, counsel for the appellant, has assailed the judgment of the learned court below on the following grounds: a. The trial court tried to convict the present appellant under Sections 302/34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act relying upon the evidence of P.W.2 as well as P.W.4 and P.W.5 (eye-witnesses of the case) and also upon the oral dying declaration and convicted the appellant as aforesaid and also acquitted, Mostt. Balia, the mother of the appellant. b. All the witnesses are interested witnesses and not reliable witnesses in as much as there are major contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5. c. The Doctor who has conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, has not been examined and further FIR has also not been proved in this case. The present appellant did not get a chance to cross-examine the witness on the medical evidence and moreover, the medical evidence does not support the oral evidence, therefore, it is a fit case for setting aside the impugned judgment and order of sentence. 10. Per contra, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned APP has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that P.W.2 (eye-witness) is the Bhabhi of the deceased and daughter-in-law of P.W.1 and P.W.4 whose evidence is very clear and cogent, specifically implicating the present appellant as the assailant and she saw that the present appellant was armed with a pistol and fired on the chest of the deceased and the deceased was shouting that the present appellant- Munshi opened fire and shot at him. After that the deceased was brought to Sub-divisional Hospital, Koderma, where he succumbed to his injuries. Learned APP further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 also corroborate the evidence of P.W.2. Ext. 2 is the post-mortem report which was proved by the concerned Compounder (P.W.8). After that the deceased was brought to Sub-divisional Hospital, Koderma, where he succumbed to his injuries. Learned APP further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 also corroborate the evidence of P.W.2. Ext. 2 is the post-mortem report which was proved by the concerned Compounder (P.W.8). There is no material to disbelieve the above evidence and, as such there being no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the findings arrived at by learned trial court do not require any interference by this Court. 11. Perused the Lower Court Records as well as depositions of the witnesses. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. He deposed that at the time of alleged occurrence, he was present in his 'Makai Bari' where he heard the sound of gunshot and thereafter he came to his house and found that his son-Birendra Mahto was lying on the earth and his dead-body was in pool of blood. He was informed that Munshi Mahto had shot him. Thereafter the injured was brought at “Koderma Hospital” where he succumbed to his injuries. 12. P.W.2-Zeriya Devi is the daughter-in-law of P.W.1 and P.W.4 and wife of the elder brother of the deceased. She deposed that at the time of alleged occurrence, she was present in the house and heard cry of the deceased -Birendra Mahto and then she came out from her house and found that the present appellant had taken shelter behind the wall of her house and he was armed with pistol and specifically deposed that the appellant fired on the chest of the deceased. In her examination-in-chief, she further stated that deceased-Birendra Mahto was shouting that this appellant had fired at him. Thereafter he was shifted to Koderma Sub-divisional Hospital where he was declared dead. She has stated in cross-examination and deposed that earth and wall of the alleged place of occurrence was in full of blood and blood was coming out from the chest of the deceased. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 by the defence to demolish the evidence. 13. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that on the date and time of occurrence, she was in the market and was purchasing materials for 'Janmastami Puja' where the present appellant met her in the market and threatened to give lesson to her. 13. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that on the date and time of occurrence, she was in the market and was purchasing materials for 'Janmastami Puja' where the present appellant met her in the market and threatened to give lesson to her. While she returned home, she found her son crying to save-save. Her son was also telling that Munshi Mahto shot at him. 14. P.W.4 is the widow of the deceased and the informant in this case. She specifically stated in her examination-in-chief that on the alleged date of occurrence, she returned after performing 'Janamastami Pooja' and at the same time, her husband came crying that Munshi (appellant) shot him and specifically stated that there was bleeding from the left cheek of her husband and she further deposed that her husband told that Munshi (appellant) was following him. Thereafter the present appellant entered into the house and opened fire on the chest of the husband and fled away. Thereafter villagers gathered and then the deceased-husband was shifted to Koderma Sub-divisional Hospital where her husband succumbed to injuries. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that after receiving the bullet injury there was bleeding. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to demolish her evidence. 15. P.W.5 and P.W.6 are brothers and nephew of the deceased. Both the witnesses specifically stated that they heard crying of the deceased and the deceased was crying that Munshi (appellant) shot at him. After hearing hulla, they went to the spot and found that Munshi (appellant) was armed with pistol and out of fear, both the witnesses fled away. Nothing has been elicited from their cross-examination in support of the defence case. 16. P.W.7-Ashok Kumar Singh, is the Investigating Officer, who received information and accordingly, registered the case. He sent the dead-body for post-mortem and after post-mortem, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and his mother, Mostt. Balia. 17. P.W.8-Kaushlendra Kumar is the compounder of Koderma State Government Hospital who assisted the Doctor at the time of autopsy and in his presence the post-mortem report (Ext.2) was prepared and P.W.9-Basudeo is the seizure witness, who has proved seizure of the blood stained soil. 18. P.W.11 is another villager and he proved his signature on seizure list of blood-stained soil marked as Ext.-3/1. 19. 18. P.W.11 is another villager and he proved his signature on seizure list of blood-stained soil marked as Ext.-3/1. 19. D.W.1 is a co-villager, who was declared hostile witness, whereas D.W.2 is the master of the appellant who specifically stated that at the relevant time, the appellant was working with him as servant. He further deposed that he was all along with him at Chaibasa. In his cross-examination, he deposed specifically that there is no documentary evidence with regard to his employment. 20. After scanning the entire evidence of prosecution-witnesses, it is crystal clear that P.W.2 is an eye-witness and she had seen the second part of the occurrence while the present appellant fired from his pistol. She had not seen the first part of occurrence, but has stated that after hearing hulla, she came from room and found that the Munshi (present appellant) had taken shelter behind the wall of her house and he was armed with pistol. Munshi fired upon Birendra Mahto. Thereafter he was shifted to Government Hospital, Koderma. P.W.4 is another eye-witness who also corroborates the evidence to the above effect. P.W.5 and P.W.6 also heard the crying of the deceased and came outside the house. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased Birendra Mahto and at the relevant time she went to the market for purchasing materials for 'Janmastami Puja' and she also saw this appellant who shot at him. 21. This Court cannot disbelieve injury no.2 which, as per the prosecution, was received just after entering into the house of the informant. This Court also cannot disbelieve the so-called dying declaration given by the deceased before his wife (P.W.4) regarding injury no.1. This Court having gone through the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4, come to the conclusion that the present appellant was the author of the crime. 22. Thus, the circumstances, as have been stated above fully proves the charges and clearly go to indicate that it was the appellant who committed murder of the deceased and under the circumstances, we find that the trial court has rightly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant and hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby, affirmed. 23. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.