JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR, J. The sole appellant is charged for having caused death of his father-in-law on the fateful noon of 17.11.2008. The learned Trial Court, on appraisal of evidence produced at the trial, held him guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine with default clause and seven years of imprisonment with fine having default clause vide judgment of conviction dated 20.04.2015 and order of sentence dated 30.04.2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Patna City (Patna) in Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2010, arising out of Alamganj P.S. Case No. 275 of 2008. The learned Trial Court has not clarified the imprisonment so imposed upon the appellant is simple imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case at the trial is that on the relevant date at about 12.15 or so the appellant called the deceased on his mobile phone later on the base phone and asked him to come to the City Court for the compromise in the pending case which was lodged earlier by his mother-in-law (PW-2) for having assaulted with knife to her as well as the wife (P.W.1) of the appellant. On getting such repeated requests from the appellant, the deceased left the house at about 1’ o’clock in the day to go to the City Court. The informant being the wife of the deceased (PW-2) also followed him. As the deceased walking ahead of the informant reached near the Chaitanya temple in the lane, the appellant, all on a sudden, appeared in front of the informant and without loss of time fired from behind once on the deceased who upon receiving the injury dropped on the lane. The appellant having discarded the weapon of assault at the place of occurrence escaped. The information was promptly given to the Police Station whereafter, as per the prosecution case, the Investigating Officer (I.O) (PW-7) arrived at the place of occurrence, recorded the ‘Fardbeyan’ of the informant (PW-2), made inquest report of the dead body, seized the pistol lying close by as well as the mobile phone from the pocket of the deceased under seizure memo (Exhibit -9). These seizures were made in presence of PWs 1 and 4. These seizures were made in presence of PWs 1 and 4. Be it noted that as per the prosecution case PW-1 being the wife of the appellant as well as PW-4 Shuklamber Jha had also arrived at the place of occurrence. Upon receiving the post-mortem report and recording the statement of the witnesses, the I.O found the case true and laid the charge sheet against the appellant whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was later committed to the Court of sessions for trial. Charges in the present case were framed on 02.02.2011 and read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The defence of the appellant was complete denial of the case and his false implication. 4. The prosecution with a view to prove the charges examined as many as 08 (eight) witnesses. PW-1 (Arti Kumari Jaiswal) is the wife of the appellant who claimed to have reached the place of occurrence immediately after the assault. PW-2 is the informant who is mother of the PW-1 and mother-in-law of the appellant. PW-3 is the son of the friend of the deceased who is a witness to the inquest report drawn by the I.O. at the place of occurrence. PW-4 is an employee in the press run by the deceased. PW-5 is Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav who conducted the post mortem over the cadaver and submitted the report (Ext. 6). PW-6 is a Teacher of the Coaching institute run by the appellant. PW-7 is the I.O. of the case who carried investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. PW-8 Shailendra Prasad Singh is the Sergeant Major who has come to support the prosecution case by proving his report with respect to the weapon of assault. Besides the aforesaid, the documentary evidence such as the Post-mortem report (Ext.6), ‘Fardbeyan’ (Ext.7), the formal First Information Report (Ext.8), seizure list (Ext. 9), the inquest report (Ext. 10) and the sanction granted for prosecution under the Arms Act (Ext. 11) have been produced by the prosecution. We find that the defence also exhibited few documents vide Ext.-A (order sheet of Sessions trial no. 833 of 2010) and Ext. A/1 the compromise petition which was filed in Alamganj P.S. case no. 345 of 2007 as also the petition seeking permission of the Court to compound the said case (Ext. A/2). 5. We find that the defence also exhibited few documents vide Ext.-A (order sheet of Sessions trial no. 833 of 2010) and Ext. A/1 the compromise petition which was filed in Alamganj P.S. case no. 345 of 2007 as also the petition seeking permission of the Court to compound the said case (Ext. A/2). 5. On critical analysis of the prosecution case, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment found that the prosecution case has been proved beyond the periphery of any doubt and convicted the appellant in the manner noted above. In doing so, the learned Trial Court mainly relied on the evidence of PW-1 (wife of the appellant), PW-2 (informant), PW-5 (doctor) and PW-7 (I.O) besides the relevant documents proved by the prosecution witnesses at the trial. 6. We have heard Mr. A.K. Thakur assisted by Mr. Tuhin Shankar in support of the appeal, Dr. Mayanand Jha APP for the State and Mr. Vasudeo Ram, counsel for the informant. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has contented that the deceased no doubt was murdered at the time and place of occurrence by firearm injury, but the manner of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution. The evidence of P.W. 2 is not reliable on account of being widow of deceased. The other witnesses P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 are not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. They are interested witnesses as they were close to the family of deceased. P.W.1 is daughter of informant and P.Ws. 3 and 4 are friend’s son and staff of the deceased. The murder was committed in broad day light in the lane near the Temple from where, not a single witness has been examined. It was the informant and her daughter (P.W.1) who hatched plan and got red off the deceased to grab the properties belonging to the deceased. The prosecution has withheld two important charge-sheeted witnesses namely, Kaushalya Devi and Sandhya Devi, who are the first wife and daughter from the first wife of the deceased. The deceased had inclination to give his property to the first wife and her daughter against the wish of informant and her daughter and so the informant was nursing grudge against the deceased. 8. The deceased had inclination to give his property to the first wife and her daughter against the wish of informant and her daughter and so the informant was nursing grudge against the deceased. 8. Another contention is that the manner of occurrence, as asserted by prosecution, is also falsified from the medical evidence which is contradictory to the evidence of P.W.2 who has stated that the appellant suddenly appeared and shot at her husband on his back (Para-4). The Doctor (P.W.5) has stated that the wound was found on the back of the right side 2.5” away right from the mid vertebral column and 7.5” below the root of neck and it was directed into thoraco abdominal cavity. This injury suggests that the assailant who shot fire would be in standing position and the deceased in sitting position. He further submitted that the prosecution has not produced the Forensic report to establish as to whether the pellet extracted from the liver of deceased match with the firearm which was seized from the place of occurrence. The finger print mark of assailant on the firearm was also not obtained and examined in order to fully establish that the recovered firearm from the place of occurrence was actually used by the appellant for assault. 9. Dr. Mayanand Jha, APP for the State and Mr. Vasueo Ram, counsel for the informant, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment of conviction. It was submitted that the widow of deceased (P.W.2) is eye-witness to the occurrence as she was also going to City Court along with her husband and at that time, she was just ten paces behind her husband. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 also reached immediately there to whom she disclosed about the manner of occurrence committed by the appellant. The prosecution has also proved the motive and enmity with the appellant and so the charge against appellant is well established and conviction and sentence inflicted on the appellant requires no interference. 10. We shall now examine the evidence on record to find whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of appellant beyond shadow of doubt. 11. In this case, we find that cause of death of deceased by firearm injury is not in dispute. The time and place of occurrence is also not in dispute. According to informant P.W.2, her husband was shot by the appellant at 1 P.M. (Para-5). 11. In this case, we find that cause of death of deceased by firearm injury is not in dispute. The time and place of occurrence is also not in dispute. According to informant P.W.2, her husband was shot by the appellant at 1 P.M. (Para-5). The local police station situates at a distance of ½ km from where Police Officer (PW 7) promptly reached and recorded the Fardbeyan (Ext. 7) at 1.15 P.M. He further prepared inquest report (Ext. 10), seized firearm and mobile phone vide seizure list (Ext. 9) at the place of occurrence within one hour. The seizure list bears signatures of P.Ws. 1 and 4 and the inquest report bears signature of P.Ws. 3 and 4. These two documents show the presence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 at the place of occurrence. They have stated that they soon reached the place of occurrence and the inquest and seizure memo were prepared in their presence. They have further stated that the informant was weeping near the dead body. She narrated the incident and the manner it was committed by appellant to the public who had assembled near the place of occurrence. P.Ws 1 and 2 have further stated that the appellant had given repeated calls over the mobile and base phone of the deceased calling him to City Court, Patna for compromising the criminal case and on the request of the appellant, informant and deceased proceeded to the City Court. The specific case of the informant is that the appellant had given call by his mobile No. 9801365695. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) in his evidence has stated that he recovered a firearm near the dead body and also a mobile phone from the possession of the deceased. At para-10 of his evidence, we find that he further deposed that he obtained print out of call details of the said mobile. The said mobile phone was found in the name of appellant and several calls were made in between 11.38 A.M. to 12.27 P.M. (noon). He further at para-12 has stated that the mobile phone of appellant was within the tower location of Gaighat, where the place of occurrence situates. There is no cross-examination on this part of the evidence of Investigating Officer. The Doctor (P.W.5) in course of conducting autopsy extracted pellet from the liver of deceased and handed over to the investigating agency. He further at para-12 has stated that the mobile phone of appellant was within the tower location of Gaighat, where the place of occurrence situates. There is no cross-examination on this part of the evidence of Investigating Officer. The Doctor (P.W.5) in course of conducting autopsy extracted pellet from the liver of deceased and handed over to the investigating agency. The Investigating Officer sent the firearm and pellet for forensic test vide-Ext. 12. The said firearm in course of examination was found in working condition. The Sergeant Major has been examined on this point as P.W. 8 and his report has been marked as Ext. 14. The District Magistrate sanctioned for prosecution of the appellant under Arms Act and his order has been marked as Ext. 11. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 corroborates the evidence of P.W. 2-informant on the point of manner of occurrence committed by the appellant and also the first version of the informant given in the Fardbeyan. 12. Admittedly, the appellant is son-in-law of informant and his marriage with P.W. 1 was result of their love affairs. After marriage, the relationship between them got strained as the appellant started demanding money. The prosecution filed Ext. 7, and Ext. 1 to 1/2 to show that on the Fardbeyan of P.W. 2, a police case vide Alamganj P.S. Case 345 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 498A, 307, 504/34 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant and few others. The prosecution further filed Ext. 2, which is the Bond executed by the appellant whereunder he gave undertaking to keep the daughter of informant nicely. According to appellant, the said case was compromised and a compromise petition (Ext. A/1) and a petition to seek permission to compromise the said case (Ext. A/2) were filed. The order-sheet showing filing of compromise petition in said case has been marked as Ext. A. The said case according to learned counsel for the informant is still pending before the Sessions Court. As the said compromise could not materialize and on account of pendency of criminal case the appellant had serious grudge against the deceased and his family members. The enmity was persisting and the appellant had motive to eliminate the deceased who was not willing to settle the said case. As the said compromise could not materialize and on account of pendency of criminal case the appellant had serious grudge against the deceased and his family members. The enmity was persisting and the appellant had motive to eliminate the deceased who was not willing to settle the said case. Being the head of the family and exercising his social contacts he was seen as the persons instrumental in not allowing the compromise being recorded and the said criminal case continued on the file of the learned sessions court. 13. On the point of enmity, a suggestion has been given to the prosecution witnesses that the deceased was intending to give his landed property to the first wife who was residing at Deoria. The informant and her daughter in order to grab the property managed to kill the deceased. The appellant has not produced any evidence to show the enmity of the deceased with the informant. In cross-examination of P.W. 2 at para-11, it has come that the deceased had five daughters from the first wife and two from the second wife. Out of them two daughters were married. The informant at para-13 has further stated that her marriage took place with the deceased about 40 years ago. The deceased had purchased land measuring 17 dhur and constructed three storied building at Patna and she was residing with the deceased and her two daughters. The deceased had further purchased 7 kathas land at Danapur (Patna). Out of said 7 katha land, 3 katha was in the name of three daughters from the first wife, 2 kathas in the name of two daughters of second wife and two kathas in the name of the informant. She has further stated at para-35 that the deceased had constructed 3 storied building over 3.5 kathas land at Deoria (Uttar Pradesh) which stands in the name of his first wife, namely, Kaushaliya Devi. The evidence of the informant shows that the deceased was maintaining and looking after well both his wives and their children without any discrimination. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the relationship between the two wives ever got strained and there was any occasion to the informant to apprehend disposition of landed property in Patna in favour of the first wife. 14. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the relationship between the two wives ever got strained and there was any occasion to the informant to apprehend disposition of landed property in Patna in favour of the first wife. 14. We further find that the appellant in his statement given under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not stated anything about the alleged enmity prevailing between the two wives of deceased. His statement is recorded at length which runs in two pages. He has stated that a false case was lodged against him in which a compromise petition was filed. He has further stated that his wife (P.W.1) voluntarily left his house in the month of March, 2008 and thereafter, she did not return and their relationship virtually came to an end. He has further stated that he does not recognize even the parents of his wife. He has not given any explanation of his alleged false implication as asserted by him. In the ruling reported in 1997, Supreme Court Cases 769, the Apex Court has observed that the examination of accused is not a mere formality. Answers given by accused to the questions put to him during such examination has a practical utility for criminal courts. Apart from offering an opportunity to the delinquent to explain incriminating circumstances against them, they would help the court in appreciating the entire evidence adduced in the court. At the time of giving statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant kept mum on the questions when he was asked about his false implication. The appellant has simply stated that the mobile from which a call was given does not belong to him, but he did not deny that he ever made a call to the deceased. 15. So far the medical evidence is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was found by the doctor shot from some higher place which does not fit with the evidence of P.W. 2 who has stated that her husband was shot from behind in the lane. In this connection, we have carefully examined the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) who at para-7 has given graphic details of the place of occurrence. He has stated that the place of occurrence is 5 feet wide lane near the Chaitanya Temple. Close south to it was a tree/bush. In this connection, we have carefully examined the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) who at para-7 has given graphic details of the place of occurrence. He has stated that the place of occurrence is 5 feet wide lane near the Chaitanya Temple. Close south to it was a tree/bush. The land appertaining south to it was higher in elevation. According to prosecution case the appellant suddenly appeared from this side and fired from behind. This appears to be reason for the doctor to find the trajectory of the injury. We therefore do not find much force in the said contention of the defence. 16. The counsel for the appellants has laid much stress on the fact that if the deceased was called and persuaded to go to the court there was no good reason for the informant to go along with him. Her presence at the scene of occurrence was not natural. We find no substance in the said submissions. It was the informant who had lodged the criminal case against her son in law for having caused injury to her and her daughter (wife of the appellant) by knife. She must be apprehensive and thus decided to accompany her husband (deceased). 17. So far examination of the witnesses of locality is concerned, we find that the Investigating Officer had not recorded statement of any local people. In this regard, there is no cross examination of the Investigating Officer. Furthermore, these days, it is seen that the public are generally reluctant to come forward and record statement before the investigating agency about the manner in which the crime was committed even if in their presence. In such circumstances and situation, the witnesses who lost their kin or well known person generally figure as witnesses. Their evidence on this count alone cannot be discarded if they have not been wholly discredited. 18. In view of the discussions made above, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt. They have been able to prove the motive of the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased. 18. In view of the discussions made above, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt. They have been able to prove the motive of the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased. It is true that there are some variations in the statement of the witnesses given in court and the statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation, but, those variations are of very little consequences not affecting the credibility of the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 on the point of motive and enmity. The witnesses particularly P.Ws. 1 and 2 have withstood the test of their cross-examination and nothing material has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. 19. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Kishore Kumar Mandal, J. - I agree.