JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J. Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Kumari Meena, learned AGA for the State. 1. The accused-appellant Raj Bahadur, upon being convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life u/s 302 I.P.C. by learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Farrukhabad in S.T. No. 83 of 1988 vide his judgment and order dated 11.05.1989 has preferred this appeal before this Court. The prosecution story is briefly stated as hereunder:- 2. One Pehalwan Singh Yadav, resident of village Nagla Tej, within the circle of P.S.- Saurikh, District- Farrukhabad had four sons, namely Balak Ram, Ram Sagar, Ajit Singh and Raj Bahadur (accused) Smt. Marg Shree, informant of this case is widow of Balak Ram, who died leaving behind his two sons, Akhilesh and Rajesh Singh (deceased). P.W.2 Smt. Shree Devi is widow of Ajit Singh. The prosecution story further is that there was an ancestral house of accused-appellant Raj Bahadur which had been partitioned between it's co-sharers about 9 or 10 years back and all the co-sharers were living separately in their respective portions which were allotted to them under the oral partition. P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree, widow of Balak Ram and P.W.2 Shree Devi, widow of Ajit Singh, were living jointly in the portions of the house which had fallen to their share under the private partition. It is further alleged that there was a Kotha which was in the possession of P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree and P.W.2 Smt. Shree Devi of which accused-appellant Raj Bahadur wanted to take forcible possession. Accused-appellant Raj Bahadur was a retired military man and he had a licensee gun. Few days prior to the occurrence, the accused-appellant Raj Bahadur started claiming that he was the owner of the disputed Kotha and tried to take forcible possession thereof. However, P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree, with the help of her sons, did not allow the accused to succeed in his evil design. It is alleged that on the fateful day i.e. 28.06.1987 at about 12 noon, accused-appellant Raj Bahadur broke open the lock of the Kotha on which P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree objected. However, the accused did not listen to her and instead slapped P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree. It is alleged that on the fateful day i.e. 28.06.1987 at about 12 noon, accused-appellant Raj Bahadur broke open the lock of the Kotha on which P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree objected. However, the accused did not listen to her and instead slapped P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree. P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree thereafter sent information of the incident to her son Rajesh (deceased) who was working in the field through her younger son Akhilesh, on which Rajesh rushed to his house and put another lock on the door of the Kotha in place of the one which was broken by the accused. Rajesh also removed the bundle of arhar wood which was stashed by the accused by the side of the wall of the kotha on which accused-appellant Raj Bahadur reached there and asked Rajesh not to remove the bundle of arhar wood to which Rajesh did not agree and asserted that the wood of arhar shall not be allowed to be kept by the side of his wall. The accused-appellant Raj Bahadur thereafter went inside his room, and returned with his loaded licensee gun and immediately fired at Rajesh, as a result of which Rajesh (deceased) sustained fire arm injuries and died instantaneously. Besides P.W.1 Smt. Marg Shree, mother of Rajesh (deceased), the occurrence was witnessed by Akhilesh, youngest son of P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree, P.W.2 Smt. Shree Devi and Narendra, son of Smt. Shree Devi. The accused ran away with his gun. Other villagers also reached the scene of occurrence. Thereafter PW1 Smt. Marg Shree got the written report of the incident (Ext.Ka.1) scribed by one Dipti and then she went to the police station and lodged the same there. On the basis of (Ext.Ka.1), check report (Ext.Ka.4) was prepared and a case against the accused was registered vide G.D. Entry copy (Ext.Ka.5). The Investigating Officer of the case P.W.4 S.I. Sri Sunder Pal Singh reached the place of occurrence. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the site plan (Ext.Ka.6) and also took the plain and blood stained earth from the scene of occurrence vide recovery memo (Ext.Ka.7) and sealed the same in two separate containers. He also seized broken lock vide recovery memo (Ext.Ka.8). The Investigating Officer after completing the inquest, prepared the Panchayatnama of the dead body of deceased Rajesh (Ext.Ka.10) and other papers namely challan lash (Ext.Ka.11) and photo lash (Ext.Ka.12). He also seized broken lock vide recovery memo (Ext.Ka.8). The Investigating Officer after completing the inquest, prepared the Panchayatnama of the dead body of deceased Rajesh (Ext.Ka.10) and other papers namely challan lash (Ext.Ka.11) and photo lash (Ext.Ka.12). The dead body of Rajesh was sent for postmortem to District Hospital, Fatehgarh. The postmortem was conducted vide postmortem report (Ext. Ka.3). After completing the investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC (Ext. Ka13) before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. 3. Since the offence mentioned in the charge-sheet was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad committed the case for trial of the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad where it was registered as S.T. No. 83 of 1988, State Vs. Raj Bahadur and made over for trial to the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act), Farrukhabad who on the basis of material on record and after hearing the accused on the point of charge, framed charge u/s 302 I.P.C. against the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the appellant examined as many as four witnesses of whom P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree and P.W.2 Smt. Shree Devi were examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence while P.W.3 Dr. S.K. Srivastava and P.W.4 S.I. Sunder Pal Singh were produced as formal witnesses. The accused-appellant in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. alleged false implication due to enmity. The learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Farrukhabad, after considering the submissions advanced before him by learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted the appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. and awarded aforesaid sentence to him. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. The F.I.R. in this case is anti-timed and the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated by P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree. 6. He next submitted that it is proved from the evidence of P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree and P.W.2 Smt. Shree Devi that none of the so-called eye-witnesses had witnessed the occurrence and they have given false evidence against the accused-appellant during the trial. 6. He next submitted that it is proved from the evidence of P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree and P.W.2 Smt. Shree Devi that none of the so-called eye-witnesses had witnessed the occurrence and they have given false evidence against the accused-appellant during the trial. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove by any cogent and reliable evidence the motive for committing the crime and that the incident had taken place at the time, place, and in the manner spelt out in the F.I.R. He lastly submitted that such being the state of evidence neither the recorded conviction of the appellant nor the sentence awarded to him can be sustained and are liable to be set-aside. 7. Per contra Kumari Meena, learned AGA appearing for the State submitted that the guilt of the accused-appellant stood fully proved from the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution during the trial. There is no inconsistency vis-a-vis the ocular version and the medical evidence on record. The F.I.R. in this case is neither anti-timed nor there is any inordinate delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have very carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties before us and perused the entire lower court record. 9. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubts or not. 10. Record shows that the incident had taken place on 28.06.1987 at about 12 noon in-front of the house of the informant under a plum tree in village Nagla Tej, P.S.- Saurikh, District- Farrukhabad in which it is alleged that the accused-appellant Raj Bahadur had shot dead his nephew, Rajesh. The written report of the incident (Ext.Ka.1) which was scribed by one Dipti on the dictation of P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree, was lodged at P.S.- Saurikh, District- Farrukhabad on the same day at about 1510 hours. The distance between the place of incident and the place of occurrence as mentioned in the check F.I.R. is about 11 kms. The written report of the incident (Ext.Ka.1) which was scribed by one Dipti on the dictation of P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree, was lodged at P.S.- Saurikh, District- Farrukhabad on the same day at about 1510 hours. The distance between the place of incident and the place of occurrence as mentioned in the check F.I.R. is about 11 kms. Therefore, in our opinion, there does not appear to be any inordinate delay on the part of P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree in lodging the written report of the occurrence and consequently it does not appear that there was any opportunity for the prosecution to have concocted a false prosecution story falsely implicating the appellants, after due deliberations and consultations. The F.I.R. in this case is not proved to be anti-timed. 11. As regards, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to establish by any cogent and reliable evidence the motive for committing the crime and that the incident had taken place at the time, manner and place mentioned in the F.I.R. as well as the identity of the culprit is concerned, the same also appears to us to be without any merit. 12. Record shows that the prosecution in order to prove the time, place and manner of the occurrence as spelt out in the F.I.R. and to establish the identity of the perpetrator of the crime, had examined P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree and P.W.2 Smt. Shree Devi as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree in her examination-in-chief fully supported the prosecution case as spelt out in the F.I.R. and deposed that her husband Balak Ram were four brothers namely Ram Sagar, Balak Ram, Ajit Singh and Raj Bahadur (accused). She had two sons, Akhilesh and Rajesh (deceased). Ajit Singh had also died, leaving behind his widow P.W.2 Smt. Shree Devi. She further deposed that the ancestral property of her husband Balak Ram was partitioned privately amongst it's co-sharers who were living separately in their respective portions which had fallen to their shares in the family partition. However, even after partition, her husband Balak Ram and P.W.2 Smt. Shree Devi, widow of Ajit Singh continued to live in their respective portions jointly. Although, accused-appellant Raj Bahadur had his own house but he had evil design of grabbing the house of P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree also. However, even after partition, her husband Balak Ram and P.W.2 Smt. Shree Devi, widow of Ajit Singh continued to live in their respective portions jointly. Although, accused-appellant Raj Bahadur had his own house but he had evil design of grabbing the house of P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree also. She further deposed that before the incident, she was beaten up by the accused-appellant Raj Bahadur and with regard to the aforesaid incident, she had earlier lodged a report at the P.S.- Saurikh which was brought on record and marked as (Ext.Ka.4). On the day of occurrence at about 10 or 11 A.M., the appellant Ram Sagar had illegally put a lock on her kotha after breaking her lock to which she objected and immediately sent her younger son Akhilesh to call her elder son Rajesh (deceased) who was working in the field. She further deposed that after a few minutes, her son Rajesh arrived at the scene of occurrence and put another lock on the door of the kotha in place of one which had been broken by accused-appellant Raj Bahadur and started removing the bundles of wood of arahar which had been stashed by accused-appellant Raj Bahadur against the side of the wall of her kotha on which accused-appellant Raj Bahadur forbade Rajesh (deceased) from removing the bundles of wood to which Rajesh (deceased) did not pay any heed. As a result, the appellant went inside his house and appeared with his loaded gun and fired at Rajesh as a consequence of which he sustained gun shot wounds, fell on the ground and died instantaneously. She further deposed that the occurrence was witnessed by her son Akhilesh and P.W.2 Smt. Shree Devi also. Since it was the month of June and it was extremely hot, most of the villagers were inside their houses, as such no other villager could witness the occurrence and it was after the occurrence that large number of villagers had gathered at the crime scene. She also deposed that the written report of the incident (Ext.Ka.1) was scribed by one Dipti on her dictation and thereafter she had gone to the P.S.- Saurikh to lodge the F.I.R. 13. She also deposed that the written report of the incident (Ext.Ka.1) was scribed by one Dipti on her dictation and thereafter she had gone to the P.S.- Saurikh to lodge the F.I.R. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the presence of P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree mainly on the ground that although in the F.I.R., she has categorically alleged that before the occurrence, she had been assaulted by the appellant by lathis but she neither got her injuries examined nor there is any injury report of P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree on the record which totally falsifies her claim of being the eye-witness of the occurrence. He further invited our attention to the facts deposed by her in her cross-examination (page 27 of the paper book) in which she had admitted that she was neither assaulted by the accused-appellant Raj Bahadur by lathi nor she had dictated the aforesaid fact to the scribe and she was unable to give an explanation as to how the aforesaid fact had crept into the written report. She categorically deposed that she was slapped and assaulted with fists by the appellant before the incident. 14. In our opinion, the contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the testimony of P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree vis-a-vis the fact stated by her in the F.I.R about being assaulted by the deceased with lathi is not so material so as to persuade us to discard her entire testimony. We have very carefully gone through her entire evidence and we have found that despite being subjected to a gruelling cross-examination, P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree, notwithstanding some minor inconsistencies, has stuck to the version of the occurrence as spelt out in the F.I.R. and the defence counsel failed to elicit or extract anything from her which may render her testimony either untrustworthy or unreliable. 15. 15. Coming to the testimony of PW2 Smt. Shree Devi, upon perusal thereof, we have no hesitation in holding that PW2 Smt. Shree Devi had not witnessed the actual incident as she in her cross examination on page 33 of the paper book has categorically deposed that on the date of the incident, she was inside her house and upon hearing the sound of gunshot she had rushed to the place of incident although she has also deposed that she had seen the accused firing at the deceased from the door of her house. 16. But her evidence is relevant on the point of date, time and place of occurrence as well as the motive for committing the murder of the deceased by the accused as canvassed by the prosecution. 17. The guilt of the accused-appellant stands fully proved on the basis of the testimony of P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree, the solitary eye-witness of the incident. After a careful scrutiny of the testimony of P.W.1 Smt. Marg Shree, we find her evidence to be clinching and consistent throughout on all material points pertaining to the occurrence. 18. The medical evidence on record fully corroborates the ocular version. Dr. S.K. Srivastava, Medical Officer who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased Rajesh and prepared his postmortem report (Ext. Ka3) was examined during the trial as P.W.3. He stated that on 29.6.1987 he was posted as Medical Officer, District Hospital Farrukhabad and on that day he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Rajesh and found following ante mortem injuries on his dead body : 19. Multiple pelet wounds of entries in an area 29 cm x 26 cm on right side face neck, chest and front of right shoulder. Measuring 20 x 20 to 1.5 cm x 3 cm x skin muscle and chest cavity deep margins inverted lacerated and adjoined from front to back obliquely upward towards right. 20. In the opinion of PW3 Dr. S.K. Srivastava the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. According to the postmortem report of the deceased Ext. Ka3 the ante mortem injuries found on his dead body were caused by firearm. 21. The motive for commission of the crime has also been proved by the prosecution in this case. S.K. Srivastava the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. According to the postmortem report of the deceased Ext. Ka3 the ante mortem injuries found on his dead body were caused by firearm. 21. The motive for commission of the crime has also been proved by the prosecution in this case. The accused-appellant according to the PW1 and PW2 wanted to take forcible possession of the Kotha which had fallen to the share of P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree in the oral partition of the ancestral house which had taken place about 10-11 years back and since the informant and her sons were not allowing the accused-appellant to take it's possession and when on the date of the incident, deceased Rajesh removed the pile of arhar which was forcibly kept by accused-appellant by the side of the wall of Kotha after breaking the accused's lock which he had put on the door of the kotha, had put his own lock on the door of his kotha to which the accused had objected and then fired at the deceased. Since the informant's son Rajesh was the main obstacle in the way of the accused-appellant of taking forcible possession of the disputed kotha, he eliminated him. Thus, the prosecution in our opinion has proved the motive in this case for the commission of the crime by the accused-appellant. 22. The date, time, place of the occurrence in this case as alleged by the prosecution stands proved from the evidence of P.W.1 Smt. Marg Shree and P.W.2 Smt. Shree Devi who have unequivocally deposed that the occurrence took place on 28.6.1987 at about 12 noon in-front of the door of the informant's house. P.W.1 Smt. Marg Shree further proved the manner of occurrence as well as the identity of the perpetrator of the crime as described in the F.I.R. by deposing that the accused had fired at Rajesh while he was standing besides the plum tree and the deceased Rajesh was standing under the plum tree. The defence counsel has failed to cross-examine P.W.1 Smt. Marg Shree and P.W.2 Smt. Shree Devi on the facts deposed by P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their evidence with regard to the date, time, place of the occurrence. 23. The defence counsel has failed to cross-examine P.W.1 Smt. Marg Shree and P.W.2 Smt. Shree Devi on the facts deposed by P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their evidence with regard to the date, time, place of the occurrence. 23. The fact that the incident had taken place at the place mentioned in the F.I.R. stands further proved from the evidence of the Investigating Officer of the case, S.I. Sunder Pal Singh who was examined as P.W.4 during the trial. P.W.4 S.I. Sunder Pal Singh deposed that on reaching the place of occurrence after the registration of the F.I.R. on the date of the occurrence, he found the dead body of the deceased Rajesh lying in-front of the door of his house where he had held the inquest and prepared the inquest report and other related documents and after concluding the inquest, he had sealed the dead body of the deceased and dispatched it for conducting postmortem. He also deposed that he had collected plain and blood-stained earth from the place of incident. He also proved the site plan of incident which was prepared (Ext.Ka.6) by him at the behest of the informant after inspecting the same. 24. There is no evidence on record even remotely suggesting that the deceased Rajesh was not murdered by the accused-appellant on the date, time and place mentioned in the F.I.R. and later proved by the prosecution witnesses during the trial. 25. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that it stands proved from the evidence of the witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution during the trial that Rajesh, son of P.W.1 informant Smt. Marg Shree was shot dead by accused-appellant Raj Bahadur in-front of the door of the house of the informant on 28.06.1987 at about 12 noon. The ocular version finds full corroboration from the medical evidence on record. The learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality or infirmity in convicting the accused-appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Accused-appellant Raj Bahadur is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and his sureties discharged. He shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail for serving out the remaining part of the sentence. 26. There shall be however no order as to costs.