JUDGMENT : KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL, J. These two appeals, each filed by one appellant, are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.12.2012 and the order of sentence dated 24.12.2012, passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge-II, Katihar in S.T. No. 204 of 2010. Altogether 9 accuseds, including both the appellants, were put on trial. Vide the judgment, the learned Trial Court acquitted seven (07) of them and convicted the appellant Ranjeet Choudhary (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 117 of 2013) under Section 302 IPC as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act whereas appellant Ram Kishore Chaudhary (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 19 of 2013) was convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Both the convicts under the relevant charge were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. Under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the appellant Ranjeet Choudhary was also held guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years with further direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Put briefly, the prosecution case as stated in the fardbeyan (Ext.-3) and developed at the trial is that on 17.07.2008, the informant (P.W.-9) along with other family members were close to their house constructing palani (thatched hut) on the bandh. At about 3 p.m. in the afternoon, two appellants along with other accused persons variously armed with rifle, country made pistol etc came. They started protesting and abusing the deceased and the informant which was retaliated whereafter appellant Ranjeet Choudhary, who was armed with a country made rifle, at the orders of appellant Ram Kishore Chaudhary, opened fire which hit the chest of the deceased. They continued with indiscriminate firings. Firing was made on him as well as his mother (P.W.-8) which hit his mother below the eye. The motive for having committed the occurrence was narrated as old land dispute between them. Recently, there was a decree in the title suit between the parties in favour of the deceased. Seeing the occurrence, the informant fled away from the place of occurrence and came back with the Police whereafter the fardbeyan was recorded by Uday Kumar, S.H.O., Falka, Pothiya O.P. (P.W.-10) on 17.07.2008 at 4.45 p.m. at the place of occurrence which gave rise to Falka Pothiya P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008. The formal F.I.R. is Ext.-4. Seeing the occurrence, the informant fled away from the place of occurrence and came back with the Police whereafter the fardbeyan was recorded by Uday Kumar, S.H.O., Falka, Pothiya O.P. (P.W.-10) on 17.07.2008 at 4.45 p.m. at the place of occurrence which gave rise to Falka Pothiya P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008. The formal F.I.R. is Ext.-4. The I.O. (P.W.-10) took up the investigation and prepared the inquest report of the dead body (Ext.5) and dispatched the same for autopsy. After concluding the investigation, the challan was led against the appellants and other accuseds whereon cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 14.05.2010. On transfer, the case came on the file of the learned Trial Court where charges were framed under relevant sections on 12.08.2010 which were read over and explained to the appellants/accuseds to which they pleaded not guilty. 3. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. P.W.-1 Dr. Ram Rekha Suman is the doctor who held autopsy on the cadaver and submitted the post mortem report (Ext.-1). P.W.-2 Beena Devi, an agnate of the informant, P.W.-3 Satish Kumar Yadav, P.W.-4 Nago Chaudhary (another agnate), P.W.-6 (Satyanarain Yadav), P.W.-7 Police Yadav (father of the deceased), P.W.-8 Suro Devi @ Uro Devi (mother of the informant) and P.W.-9 (informant) have proclaimed themselves as eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.-5 Jitendra Kumar Chaurasia is a hearsay witness whereas P.W.-10 Udai Kumar is the Investigating Officer who conducted investigation and finding the accusations true, led the charge-sheet. After conclusion of the evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313(1) of the Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein they abjured the guilt. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution also brought on record the post mortem report (Ext.-1), the fardbeyan of P.W.-9 (Ext.-3), the formal F.I.R. drawn in the case (Ext.-4), the inquest report prepared on 17.07.2008 (Ext.-5) and two charge-sheets filed in this case as Ext.-6 and 6/1, the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 43 of 1998 as Exts.-7 and 8 respectively besides some other documents. The Trial Court, on close scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence produced at the trial, found the charges having been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against the present appellants and held them guilty as stated above. The Trial Court, on close scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence produced at the trial, found the charges having been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against the present appellants and held them guilty as stated above. However, the learned Trial Court found the evidence wholly deficient against the 07 other accuseds put on trial along with the appellants and they were acquitted of the charges. 4. We have heard Sri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Anil Kumar Choudhary in support of the appeals as well as Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP for the State. 5. The judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court has been criticized by the appellants on diverse counts. It is submitted referring to the fardbeyan (Ext.-3), testimonies of P.W.-2 (at paragraph 5) P.W.-6 (at page 46 of the paper book) and P.W.-9 (at page 67 of the paper book) that old land dispute between the appellants and the prosecution are somewhat admitted. In the backdrop of this, the Court should proceed to examine the veracity of the evidence. The evidence of the doctor (P.W.-1) completely belies or contradicts the prosecution case as there is no explanation about the second injury sustained by the deceased on the relevant date and time of occurrence. The doctor found one injury on the back of the deceased. Who caused this injury, has not been explained by the prosecution. The manner of occurrence as projected by the prosecution becomes doubtful. Although, the prosecution has alleged that they have title and possession over the land but they have failed to prove the same by convincing material. Even according to the prosecution, one title appeal, at the instance of the present appellant, was pending. There is undue delay in transmission of the F.I.R. to the Court. If the F.I.R. was formally registered at 4.45 p.m. on 17.07.2008, why the same was withheld on the following day? The learned Magistrate has seen and put initials on the fardbeyan on 19.07.2008. The evidence of some of the witnesses should be disbelieved as they have admitted about having made statement before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. close to around 1 ½ - 2 months after the recording of the fardbeyan. P.W.-3, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 have admitted that their statements were recorded by the I.O. after a delay of 1 ½ - 2 months. P.W.-3, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 have admitted that their statements were recorded by the I.O. after a delay of 1 ½ - 2 months. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.-10) (at page 76 of the paper book). The objective finding of the Investigating Officer does not support the prosecution case as believing the prosecution case at least 14 shots were fired but the Investigating Officer did not find the shells of the cartridges. In fact, he has admitted that he did not look for the shells of the cartridges and seized them at and around the place of occurrence. Arguing further, it has been submitted that the evidence of P.W.-8 (mother of the deceased) should completely be disbelieved as there is nothing on record to show that she ever received any injury below her eyes. In fact, the Trial Court has also disbelieved this part of the prosecution case. The prosecution case also suffers seriously as learned Trial Court did not find sufficient materials with regard to the allegation of putting the hut or palani on fire. The accused persons have been acquitted of the charge. If the prosecution case, in material part, has been disbelieved then the rest being inseparable, should also be completely rejected. 6. In contra, Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP supported the impugned judgment. He submits that the prosecution has proved the case by convincing and reliable evidence. There is specific allegation against the appellant Ram Kishore Chaudhary of exhorting the appellant Ranjeet Choudhary whereafter appellant Ranjeet Choudhary fired from his country made rifle which hit the front part of the chest of the deceased which proved fatal. Referring to the inquest report (Ext.-5), the post mortem report (Ext.1) as well as the evidence of the doctor (P.W.-1), it has been submitted that the deceased, in fact, received one injury at his chest. The other injury found on the back of the deceased was the wound of exit. The evidence of the doctor is very clear and specific on the point. It is, thus, the case where the allegation against the appellant Ranjeet Choudhary of having caused injury by means of country made rifle gets full support from the objective finding of the doctor. The participation of appellant Ram Kishore Chaudhary in the crime has also been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. It is, thus, the case where the allegation against the appellant Ranjeet Choudhary of having caused injury by means of country made rifle gets full support from the objective finding of the doctor. The participation of appellant Ram Kishore Chaudhary in the crime has also been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. We shall first examine the contention of the appellants with respect to the injury sustained by the deceased. Whether the same fits in the case put up by the prosecution or not? Before we do so, it is to be kept in mind that specific case of the prosecution is that the appellant Ranjeet Choudhary on being exhorted by appellant Ram Kishore Chaudhary fired from the country made rifle at the chest of the deceased. The relevant evidence also indicates that such firing was made from a distance of 14-15 paces. P.W.-1 Dr. Ram Rekha Suman was posted as the Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Katihar. On 18.07.2008, he conducted autopsy on the cadaver and found the following ante mortem external injuries:- “(i) one bleeding wound, round shaped with inverted margin, dimension ¼” X ¼” x cavity deep on the upper part of the left side of chest:- wound of entry (ii) one about oval shaped bleeding wound on lt. side of upper part of the back with inverted margin, dimension ½” x ½” cavity deep- approximating with the wound of entry : wound of exit.” The Doctor did not find and recover the bullet from the body as it went out through the wound of exit. We shall immediately revert to and examine what the Investigating Officer found on the dead body in the inquest report (Ext.-5). It is found therefrom that one fire arm injury below the chest was found whereas one injury of exit was found on his back. These two relevant evidence on record firmly establish that the deceased had received wound of entry on his chest caused by fire arm and the injury on his back was the wound of exit. We find and conclude that the evidence noticed above prove at least two facts. The deceased received one fire arm injury on his chest which was ante-mortem in nature, which passed through the body and the wound of exit was found on the back. The death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. We find and conclude that the evidence noticed above prove at least two facts. The deceased received one fire arm injury on his chest which was ante-mortem in nature, which passed through the body and the wound of exit was found on the back. The death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The contention of the appellants that the injuries found on the person of the deceased have not been explained by the prosecution is not found well grounded. 8. Having said so, we shall now proceed to scan the other relevant evidence to see whether the prosecution has been able to prove the case presented by it beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. 9. Before we do so, it would be apt to examine the background in which the offence is said to have taken place. We find from the evidence of the witness as well as the Investigating Officer that on the relevant date, the deceased was constructing a shed (palani) on the bandh. It is flanked on both sides by land which is the subject matter of litigation between both the parties. It was the month of July. Water had logged around the bandh. The purpose of putting up the hut/palani was to provide safety to the animals or the family members in case of flood. Almost, all the relevant witnesses including Beena Devi P.W.-2 (mother of P.W.-3) and P.W.-6 deposed that a dispute relating to the said land was pending in Court. It has also come in evidence that the title suit filed by the deceased against one of the appellant was recently decreed in favour of the plaintiff. An appeal there against was filed by the defendant of the suit. The judgment in the pending appeal was expected very soon. On this basis, it has been submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove conclusive right and title over the land and that the enmity between them existed. The testimony of the relevant witness merits to be adjudged in the background of those facts providing the backdrop. All the witnesses have stated that the cause behind occurrence is land dispute which is going on since last ten years. The testimony of the relevant witness merits to be adjudged in the background of those facts providing the backdrop. All the witnesses have stated that the cause behind occurrence is land dispute which is going on since last ten years. On perusal of Exts.-7 and 8, we find that the deceased had filed a Title Suit No. 43 of 1998 against the appellant Ranjeet Choudhary and his brother which was decided against the appellant and the right and title of the deceased was declared over the disputed land which situates west of the place of occurrence. The appellant filed Title appeal No. 19 of 2006 against the said judgment which, after hearing, was dismissed by Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Katihar vide Ext.-9. The land dispute between the parties is not disputed by the appellants. So, we find that the appellants had grudge against the deceased and the only motive was to eliminate the deceased who was fighting for the said land. 10. The enmity between the parties may be considered as a case of false implication but on the other hand, it may be considered as the motive for having committed the occurrence. It is a double edged weapon. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 (informant) have given ocular account of the occurrence. Their evidence, with minor variation, support the prosecution case as projected at the trial. In sum and substance, their evidence is to the effect that while the deceased and the informant were constructing the palani (hut) on the bandh (top surface of the canal), the appellants, armed with various weapons, arrived there and objected to the construction of the hut which was not heeded to. At the orders of the appellant Ram Kishore Chaudhary, co-appellant Ranjeet Choudhary fired from his gun which hit the deceased on his chest. One shot fired by Ranjeet Choudhary also hit P.W.-8 Suro Devi (mother of the deceased) near her eyes. The reason for the occurrence was land dispute between both parties. However, one of the witnesses namely P.W.-3 Satish Kumar Yadav, while supporting first part of the prosecution case, stated that the shot fired by Kare Choudhary (not the appellant) hit the mother of the deceased near her eyes. The informant was standing at a close distance when the fire was shot. He immediately ran away therefrom and went to the Police to inform about the occurrence. The informant was standing at a close distance when the fire was shot. He immediately ran away therefrom and went to the Police to inform about the occurrence. P.W.-10 (the investigating officer), in his deposition, has stated that on the relevant date while he was at Dumar Chowk, he heard about the occurrence whereafter he went to the place of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan in his pen (Ext.-3) He prepared the death inquest report (Ext.-5) at the place of occurrence. The following day further statement of the informant was recorded by him along with the statement of Satish Kumar Yadav (P.W.-3) However, this witness has stated that the statement of Uro Devi was recorded by him on 01.09.2008 whereas the statement of P.W.-2 Beena Devi and P.W.-6 (Satyanarain Yadav) were recorded by him on 18.09.2008. These witnesses have also given the description of the place of occurrence, which is the bandh called Mantaria Bandh. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the information about the occurrence was given to him by the informant while he was at the Dumar Chowk whereafter he had proceeded to the place of occurrence. 11. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that part of the prosecution case, insofar as putting the hut/palani on fire and injury caused to P.W.-8 by means of fire arm in course of the occurrence, having been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court, the rest of the prosecution case should also be completely disbelieved. We find from the evidence of the prosecution case the deceased had house separate from the present palani. In fact, only 4-5 bamboos were fixed for putting up the palani/hut when the incident took place. These constructions are alleged to have been set at blaze. In view of the findings of the Investigating Officer, the case relating to the charge of putting the house on fire was not accepted as convincing by the learned Trial Court. The testimony of P.W.-8 (Uro Devi) was also disbelieved so far as her receiving injury near her eyes is concerned on the ground that no medical report to this effect was furnished which could have given credence to her testimony as also the sharp variation in the ocular evidence although this witness has stated that she remained under treatment of a doctor in connection with the injuries sustained near her eyes for few weeks. It is not unusual for the prosecution to super add some allegations which are in addition to the main allegation/charge. The testimony of the prosecution witness, on the point of charge under section 435 IPC as well as Section 307 IPC for causing injury in the occurrence to P.W.-8 (Uro Devi), have been disbelieved. Whether the rest part of the evidence can be totally disbelieved on this count alone? We do not find that the charges which have been found to have been proved and the charges which have not found proved by cogent evidence are two distinct charges. It has also not been seriously urged before us that they are inseparable. The Court is, therefore, obliged to consider and evaluate the rest part of the evidence of the prosecution untarnished by the fact that some part of their evidence have not been found reliable by the learned Trial Court. As noticed, the evidences of the eye witnesses are consistent on the first part of the allegation which resulted in the death of the deceased by means of fire arm used by appellant Ranjeet Choudhary. The presence of appellant Ram Kishore Chaudhary at the scene of occurrence armed with weapon and exhorting the appellant Ranjeet Choudhary to open fire is also well established. It has been urged that the testimony of P.Ws. 3, 6 and 8 should be excluded from consideration as they were first examined by the Investigating Officer after 15 days or one and a half months after the occurrence. We do not find from the testimony of the Investigating Officer that any question was put to him by the defence with regard to the delay. It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to record statement of the witnesses. In absence of having provided an opportunity to the Investigating Officer by confronting him with relevant question, the delay in recording their CD statement would not be of much legal consequence. Apart from the testimony of those witnesses, the prosecution has the support of the ocular account of the occurrence given in Court by P.W.-2 (Beena Devi), P.W.-4 (Nago Yadav), and P.W.-9 (informant) who have supported almost in entirety the first part of the prosecution case. We do not find that in course of their cross-examination, the defence has been able to discredit their evidence. Their evidence, thus, inspire confidence of the Court. 12. We do not find that in course of their cross-examination, the defence has been able to discredit their evidence. Their evidence, thus, inspire confidence of the Court. 12. It has been urged that the Investigating Officer did not find any bloodstained mark near the place of occurrence or the shell of the cartridges near the place of occurrence when several rounds of fire were allegedly made. The evidence is that upon receiving the fire arm injury, the blood had oozed out from the wound. The place of occurrence has, therefore, not been fixed by the prosecution. We have carefully examined the record and the evidence. The Investigating Officer in his cross-examination has stated that he has not incorporated in the case record that any blood mark or shell of cartridges was found at the place of occurrence. However, he is specific that the dead body of the deceased was found lying on the bandh, which is the place of occurrence. The ocular evidence on this point is consistent. This may be a fault on the part of the Investigating officer which, in view of the positive evidence in Court of many of the eye witnesses, would not shake the prosecution case. 13. Mr. Singh also led stress on the fact that the testimony of the informant is that seeing the assault on his brother, he fled away from the place of occurrence and went to Dumar Chowk and thereafter to the Police Station but the Investigating Officer in his deposition has stated that he heard about the occurrence while he was at the Dumar Chowk. In his cross-examination, the Investigating Officer has stated that he met the informant at the Dumar Chowk. This is, in our view, a very minor discrepancy having no material bearing on the veracity of the prosecution case. It is explicit from the record that the Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence at around 4 o’clock and recorded the fardbeyan at about 4.45 p.m. He also prepared inquest report (Ext.-5) of the dead body at about 4.30 p.m. which was signed by the informant and one Anil Kumar. This contradiction in the evidence of the informant and that of the Investigating Officer (P.W.-10), in our view, is not so crucial so as to completely disbelieve the evidence of the informant in view of the proved facts. 14. This contradiction in the evidence of the informant and that of the Investigating Officer (P.W.-10), in our view, is not so crucial so as to completely disbelieve the evidence of the informant in view of the proved facts. 14. Before we conclude, one of the submissions of the Counsel for the appellants may also be noticed. It is contended that there is inordinate delay in transmitting the F.I.R. to the Court providing an opportunity to fabricate the case. The F.I.R. was registered in the evening of 17.07.2008 which must have been dispatched to the Court on the following day. The Magistrate had seen and signed the same a day after. We do not find anything very unusual so as to discredit the entire prosecution case. The delay was not inordinate and thus fatal. 15. For the reasons stated above, we do not find merit in these appeals. 16. Dismissed. Sanjay Kumar, J. - I agree.