JUDGMENT : Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 05.10.2007 and Order of sentence dated 08.10.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 2005, whereby, the sole accused has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was, however, passed for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Anath Lal Mahatha, the brother of the deceased Triveni Lal Mahatha, recorded on 06.02.2005, at about 9.15 A.M., at Bokaro General Hospital, wherein he has stated that on the same day at about 06:00 A.M., he had gone to the house of his elder brother Triveni Lal Mahatha, situated at Bhojudih, for making some consultations, where he was informed that his brother had gone for a morning walk along with one Subal Bhaiya. The informant went out in search of his brother and as soon as he came near the Railway Institute near the Mini More, and reached near a tobacco shop, he saw that accused Sarat Mahatha was holding a pistol near the ear of his brother Triveni Mahatha, and his brother Sapan Mahatha was holding the brother of the informant. One Madan Mahatha was abusing Subal Bhaiya in filthy languages. Upon seeing this, the informant shouted loudly out of fear, whereupon Sarat Mahatha fired the pistol causing the injuries near the ear of his brother and his brother fell down. Sarat Mahatha asked the other accused persons to flee away, stating that the family members of Triveni had arrived, and all the three accused persons fled away. In the mean time Janardan Mahatha and Basudeo Mahatha also arrived there, and they told the informant that they had also seen the occurrence. The informant went near his brother and saw two bullet injuries near the ear of his brother, who was writhing in pains. In the mean time Janardan Mahatha and Basudeo Mahatha also arrived there, and they told the informant that they had also seen the occurrence. The informant went near his brother and saw two bullet injuries near the ear of his brother, who was writhing in pains. In the meantime, the police also arrived there, and they brought his brother to Bokaro General Hospital, where he was declared dead. It is stated in the fardbeyan that there was political rivalry between the accused persons and the deceased, due to which the accused persons had committed the murder. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Chandankiary (Bhojudih O.P.) P.S. Case No. 09 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 122 of 2005, was instituted for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, against the named accused persons, and investigation was taken up. Upon investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet only against the sole accused, and the other two co-accused were not sent up for trial. 4. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and upon the accused’s pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. In course of trial, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O., and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. 5. P.W.-5 Anath Lal Mahatha is the informant of the case and the brother of the deceased. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 06.02.2005 at about 06:15 A.M., in the morning. He had gone to the house of his brother Triveni Lal Mahatha for some consultations at about 6:00 A.M., where he was informed that he had gone for a morning walk along with Subal Bhaiya. He proceeded in search of his brother and when he came to Mini More near Railway Institute, and reached near a tobacco shop, he saw that Sarat Mahatha was holding a pistol near the ear of his brother. Sapan Mahatha had caught hold his brother and Madan Mahatha was abusing Subal Bhaiya in filthy languages. He proceeded in search of his brother and when he came to Mini More near Railway Institute, and reached near a tobacco shop, he saw that Sarat Mahatha was holding a pistol near the ear of his brother. Sapan Mahatha had caught hold his brother and Madan Mahatha was abusing Subal Bhaiya in filthy languages. Upon seeing this, this witness shouted loudly whereupon, Sarat Mahatha fired the pistol injuring his brother near the ear, and he fell down. Thereafter, Sarat Mahatha asked the other accused to flee away and all of them fled away. He has stated that Basudeo Mahatha and Janardan Mahatha also came there and they had also seen the occurrence. Thereafter, he went near his brother and found two gunshot injuries near the ear of his brother, who was writhing in pains. In the meantime, the police jeep arrived there and they brought his brother to the Bokaro General Hospital, where he was declared dead. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place due to the political rivalry. His fardbeyan was recorded by the police, whereupon he had put his signature and the other witnesses had also put their signatures. He had identified the signatures and has also identified the fardbeyan, and as such, the entire fardbeyan was marked Ext.2. He has also stated that the inquest report of the dead body was prepared, on which he, and Subal Bhaiya had put their signatures, which also he identified, and the signatures on the inquest report were marked Exts. 3 and 3/1. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that his statement was recorded at about 09:15 A.M., at the Bokaro General Hospital. He has also stated that the deceased was his own brother and they were still joint. He has denied the knowledge about the criminal antecedents of his deceased brother. He has also stated in his cross-examination that in the morning he was informed by the second wife of his deceased brother, that he had gone for a morning walk along with Subal Bhaiya. He has stated that Subal Bhaiya was his cousin. He has also stated that Janardan Mahatha and Basudeo Mahatha are also his co-villagers, and they are related as uncle and nephew amongst themselves. He has stated that Subal Bhaiya was his cousin. He has also stated that Janardan Mahatha and Basudeo Mahatha are also his co-villagers, and they are related as uncle and nephew amongst themselves. He has also stated that after about 10 to 15 minutes of the occurrence, the police arrived at the place of occurrence, and the deceased remained at the place of occurrence for about 15 to 20 minutes. He had not informed the police about the occurrence at the place of occurrence and had not given any information prior to the recording of his fardbeyan. They had left the place of occurrence for hospital at about 07:00 A.M. and from that time up to the recording of his fardbeyan, he was along with the Incharge of the Police Station. He has stated that whatever he has stated about time, that was only by estimation. He has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 6. P.W.-1 Subal Chandra Bhaiya, P.W.-2 Basudeo Mahatha and P.W.-6 Janardan Mahatha have also supported the case as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.-1 Subal Chandra Bhaiya has stated that on 06.02.2005 he had gone for a morning walk and when he reached near the shop of one Bhola Thakur, he met Triveni Mahatha, and thereafter they proceeded for the morning walk together. P.W.-2 Basudeo Mahatha and P.W.-6 Janardan Mahatha have stated that on 06.02.2005 at about 06:15 A.M., they were going to catch a train at Bhojudih Railway Station, and by that time they had reached the place of occurrence. All these three witnesses have supported the prosecution case as eye-witnesses, more or less in the same manner, as stated by P.W.-5 Anath Lal Mahatha, the informant in the case. P.W.-1 Subal Chandra Bhaiya has stated that all of them had brought the injured to the hospital on the police jeep, and this fact is also supported by the other two witnesses in their cross-examinations. They have also identified the accused in the Court. P.W.-1 Subal Chandra Mahatha has stated in his cross-examination that his house is situated at a distance of 400 to 500 feet from the place of occurrence and he has admitted that the deceased was his cousin. He has also stated that the deceased Triveni Mahatha had taken a contract in Workers Co-operative, in which this witness, as well as Basudeo Mahatha and Janardan Mahatha were also the partners. He has also stated that the deceased Triveni Mahatha had taken a contract in Workers Co-operative, in which this witness, as well as Basudeo Mahatha and Janardan Mahatha were also the partners. He has stated that the house of the informant was at Rangatand which was at a distance of about three kilometers from the place of occurrence, and Basudeo and Janardan are also the residents of Rangatand village. He has denied the knowledge about the criminal antecedents of the deceased and he has stated that during the morning walk he had not met anyone else. This witness has stated that within 2 to 3 minutes of the occurrence, the informant Anath Lal Mahatha, Basudeo Mahatha and Janardan Mahatha had reached there and the police had reached there in about 20 to 25 minutes. He has denied the suggestion that police had reached the place of occurrence first, and thereafter these witnesses had reached the place of occurrence. He has also stated that he had not given any information to the police at the place of occurrence, and has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. P.W.-2 Basudeo Mahatha has stated in his cross-examination that when he reached the place of occurrence, he had not seen anyone else except the deceased and the accused persons. He has also denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. P.W.-6 Janardan Mahatha has admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased was his co-villager and agnate. He has also stated that while he was going to the O.P. to inform the police, the police arrived at the place of occurrence on a jeep. They took the deceased to hospital on the police jeep itself. He has stated that the blood was shed at the place of occurrence and he has also denied any knowledge about the criminal antecedents of the deceased. He has also denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 7. P.W.-4 Samaresh Mahatha is the son of the deceased, and he is only a hearsay witness. He has stated that while he was at his house, he was informed that someone had assaulted his father by firearm, whereupon, he went to the place of occurrence and saw that his father was being put in the police jeep. His uncle Anath Lal Mahatha, Subal Bhaiya, Basuedeo Mahatha and Janardan Mahatha were also on the police jeep taking his father to the hospital. His uncle Anath Lal Mahatha, Subal Bhaiya, Basuedeo Mahatha and Janardan Mahatha were also on the police jeep taking his father to the hospital. He was informed by those persons about the occurrence there itself. He has stated that in the hospital his father was declared dead. He has identified the accused in the Court. 8. P.W.-3 is Dr. Pramod Kumar, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 06.02.2005, and had found the following injuries on the dead body : External Injury :- (1) It is a case of gunshot injury in which pellet entered from right side in front and above 1” of right ear. Size of entrance hole ¼”inch circular. Exit at the site of left parietal bone. It caused fracture of parietal bone. Size of exit was 1” circular. The dead pellet were in skin of head. (2) 2nd gunshot injury was found above right ear. Size ½” circular. Its exit was not found in skull. The pellet remained in brain substances and had broken the brain substance. On dissection:-Heart, lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys were pale. Time of death within ten hours from post mortem. He has stated that the cause of death was gunshot injuries on the vital portion of the brain causing bleeding, shock and cardio respiratory failure. He has stated that he gave the recovered pellets from the dead body to the police and two pellets were recovered from the brain substance. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.1. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he did not find any mark of charring or blackening at the site of entry of the pellets and in case of firing beyond six feet there would not be any such charring and blackening at the site. He has also stated that difference in the size of two wounds of entry were suggestive of the fact that the wounds were caused by two different firearms. 9. P.W.-7 Awadh Bihari Pandey is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 06.02.2005, he was posted as Incharge of Bhojudih O.P., and at about 9.15 A.M., he had recorded the fardbeyan of Anath Lal Mahatha at Bokaro General Hospital, which he has proved to be in his pen and signature, and the same was earlier marked Ext.2. This witness has stated that on 06.02.2005, he was posted as Incharge of Bhojudih O.P., and at about 9.15 A.M., he had recorded the fardbeyan of Anath Lal Mahatha at Bokaro General Hospital, which he has proved to be in his pen and signature, and the same was earlier marked Ext.2. He has stated that he sent the fardbeyan for lodging the formal F.I.R. and has proved the forwarding and the registration endorsements on the fardbeyan as Ext. 2/1 and 2/2 respectively, and has also proved the formal F.I.R., which was marked Ext.4. He has stated that he took over the charge of investigation and prepared the inquest report of dead body, which also he has proved, and the same was marked Ext.3/2. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He inspected the place of occurrence, which was situated near Mini More at Bhojudih, near Railway Institute. He has given the details of the place of occurrence. He has stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses Janardan Mahatha, Basudeo Mahatha and Subal Chandra Bhaiya and proceeded for arresting the accused persons. Later, he recorded the statements of the other witnesses. He received the post-mortem report and he also received the pellets which were kept in Police Malkhana. He recorded the confessional statement of the accused and submitted the charge-sheet only against Sarat Chandra Mahatha. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that at about 07.05 A.M., in the morning, there was an information that someone had assaulted Triveni Lal Mahatha, whereupon he had proceeded towards the place of occurrence, after making the necessary sanha entry. He has stated that at that time there was no information about the accused and as such, he had not recorded any F.I.R. He reached the place of occurrence, which was at a distance of about ¼ mile, in 5 to 10 minutes, where he saw the deceased in the pool of blood, who was not in a position to speak. He did not record the F.I.R. there, rather, he thought it appropriate to take the injured for treatment. He has stated that it is mentioned in the case diary that soon after the occurrence, the Incharge of the O.P. had a talk with the Dy. S.P., and at that time the name of the accused was not disclosed. He did not record the F.I.R. there, rather, he thought it appropriate to take the injured for treatment. He has stated that it is mentioned in the case diary that soon after the occurrence, the Incharge of the O.P. had a talk with the Dy. S.P., and at that time the name of the accused was not disclosed. He has stated that prior to taking the injured to Bokaro General Hospital, he had not recorded the statement of anyone, nor the names of the relatives of the deceased present there were mentioned in the case diary, though some persons were there at the place of occurrence. He has stated that he had seen blood stained soil at the place of occurrence, but he had not seized the same. He had not got the pellets examined by the ballistic expert. He has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 10. P.W.-8 is Pradip Kumar Mahto, who had produced the pellets in the Court, which were marked Material Ext.-I, and the relevant entry of the malkhana register was marked as Ext.5, upon his identification. 11. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the evidence against him. Two witnesses were examined by the prosecution, who are D.W.-1 Bhoram Prasad and D.W.-2 Nausad Ansari. D.W.-1 Bhoram Prasad has come to depose that he had not seen either the informant, or the eye witnesses at the place of occurrence, and D.W.-2 Nausad Ansari is a formal witness, who has proved the written report of Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 2 of 2003 as Ext. G. Some other documents have also been marked as exhibits, to show the criminal antecedents of the deceased. On the basis of the evidence on record, the appellant has been found guilty, and convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below for the offences, as aforesaid. 12. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as the evidence of the eye witnesses are full of contradictions. 12. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as the evidence of the eye witnesses are full of contradictions. It is submitted by learned senior counsel that according to F.I.R., as also according to the evidence of the informant P.W.-5 Anath Lal Mahatha, the informant had gone to the house of the deceased for making some consultations, where he was informed that the deceased had gone for a morning walk along with Subal Bhaiya. Subal Bhaiya has been examined as P.W.-1, but he has stated that he met the deceased only in the way near the shop of Bhola Thakur. It is submitted it is absolutely doubtful that at the house the informant could be informed that the deceased had gone along with Subal Bhaiya. Learned senior counsel further submitted that all the witnesses supporting the prosecution case as eye witness to the occurrence, are related in some manner or the other to the deceased, and they are highly interested witnesses. It is submitted that P.W.-1 Subal Chandra Bhaiya has admitted to be the cousin of the deceased, and P.W.-2 Basudeo Mahatha and P.W.-6 Janardan Mahatha have admitted to be the co-villagers and the agnates of the deceased, whereas the evidence of P.W.-1 Subal Chandra Bhaiya also shows that all of them are partners in a contract along with the deceased. Learned senior counsel submitted that admittedly all the eye witnesses are the chance witnesses who had shown their presence at the place of occurrence, but the presence of only relatives and partners of the deceased at the time and place of occurrence, is very doubtful and it cannot be ruled out that the accused has been falsely implicated due to the admitted political rivalry between them. Learned senior counsel also submitted that evidence of one witness rules out the presence of the others, at the place of occurrence, as the witnesses have stated that when they reached, no one else was there. Learned senior counsel further submitted that P.W.-7 Awadh Bihari Pandey, the I.O., in his evidence, has nowhere stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, the eye witnesses were also there. Learned senior counsel further submitted that P.W.-7 Awadh Bihari Pandey, the I.O., in his evidence, has nowhere stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, the eye witnesses were also there. Learned senior counsel has also pointed out that the other two co-accused, against whom no charge-sheet was submitted by the police, were summoned to face the trial, invoking Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., they had faced the trial separately, and have been acquitted after the trial. It is further submitted that the medical evidence also makes the prosecution case very doubtful, in as much as, P.W.-3 Dr. Pramod Kumar has stated that the injuries could be caused by two firearms, but there is no evidence that two firearms were used by the accused. Learned senior counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and it is a fit case in which, even though the prosecution case is supported by four witnesses, claiming to be the eye witness to the occurrence, the appellant ought to have been given at least the benefits of doubt. 13. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that the prosecution case is supported by four eye witnesses who are P.W.-1 Subal Chandra Bhaiya, P.W.-2 Basudeo Mahatha, P.W.-5 Anath Lal Mahatha, the informant and the brother of the deceased, and P.W.-6 Janardan Mahatha, and all these witnesses have stated that it was this accused who was holding the pistol upon the ear of the deceased and had fired the pistol, which ultimately proved fatal. It is submitted by learned counsel that the evidence of all these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-3 Dr. Pramod Kumar, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.1, who found two firearm injuries on the dead body of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that though some of the witnesses may be termed as chance witnesses, but it is well settled principle of law that the evidence of the chance witness has only to be seen with more care and caution, and it cannot be discarded only on the ground of being chance witness. It is submitted by learned counsel that since the ocular evidence of the eye witnesses is fully corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.-3 Dr. It is submitted by learned counsel that since the ocular evidence of the eye witnesses is fully corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.-3 Dr. Pramod Kumar, the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 14. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that though it is submitted by learned senior counsel that the presence of the eye witnesses at the place of occurrence is very doubtful, they being only the chance witnesses, and all of them having some connections with the deceased, but we find that all these eye witnesses have stated that they had taken the deceased to the hospital on the police jeep itself. P.W.-1 Subal Chandra Bhaiya has stated that all of them had brought the injured to the hospital on the police jeep, and this fact is also supported by P.W.-2 Basudeo Mahatha and P.W.-6 Janardan Mahatha in their cross-examinations. No suggestion was given to these witnesses that they were falsely stating this fact, and even the I.O. has not been cross-examined on this fact as stated by the witnesses. P.W.-4 Samaresh Mahatha, who is the son of the deceased, had also seen that Anath Lal Mahatha, Subal Bhaiya, Basuedeo Mahatha and Janardan Mahatha were taking his father to the hospital on the police jeep. The evidence of the I.O. P.W.-7 Awadh Bihari Pandey shows that the statements of these witnesses were recorded simultaneously by him, and the statements of other witnesses were recorded later, which clearly indicates the presence of these witnesses together. The I.O. has also stated that though the names of the relatives of the deceased present at the place of occurrence were not entered in the case diary, but some persons were there at the place of occurrence. As such, we are of the considered view, that there are enough materials on the record to prove the presence of all the four eye witnesses, including the informant, at the place of occurrence. 15. The eye witnesses, P.W.-1 Subal Chandra Bhaiya, P.W.-2 Basudeo Mahatha, P.W.-5 Anath Lal Mahatha, the informant, and P.W.-6 Janardan Mahatha have fully supported the prosecution case and their ocular evidence is fully corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.-3 Dr. 15. The eye witnesses, P.W.-1 Subal Chandra Bhaiya, P.W.-2 Basudeo Mahatha, P.W.-5 Anath Lal Mahatha, the informant, and P.W.-6 Janardan Mahatha have fully supported the prosecution case and their ocular evidence is fully corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.-3 Dr. Pramod Kumar. Though it is submitted that on the basis of the sizes of the wounds of entry, that the Doctor has opined that two firearms might have been used and it is also submitted that the absence of charring and blackening mark near the wound of entry would showed that the deceased was not assaulted from a close range, rather the firing was made from beyond six feet, but we do not find any substance in these submissions. The evidence of eye witnesses is that the accused was holding the pistol near the ear of the deceased and had fired upon the deceased, which shows that it was a contact shot, and in such firing, no charring or blackening mark can be found on the skin near the wound of entry. The evidence of the Doctor shows that there was very small difference in the sizes of the wounds of entry, and he has not given any definite finding that the wounds could only be caused by two firearms. Keeping in view the fact that the pistol was not licensed, the weapon may be a country made pistol, in which case, the sizes of pellets in the cartridge could differ, causing difference in the size of wounds. In any event, the Doctor conducting the post-mortem examination was not a ballistic expert, and he was not competent to give any finding about the number of the firearm used. 16. The evidence of the informant Anath Lal Mahatha, cannot be doubted and discarded for the simple reason that he had stated that he was informed at the house of the deceased that the deceased had gone along with Subal Bhaiya for a morning walk, whereas the evidence of Subal Chandra Bhaiya shows that he had met the deceased in the way, particularly when all the eye witnesses have stated that it was this accused who had fired the gun upon the deceased which proved fatal, and the presence of these eye witnesses cannot be doubted at the place of occurrence. We are also of the considered view that simply due to the fact that there may be some contradictions in the time given by the witnesses as to when they reached the place of occurrence, or when the police reached the place of occurrence, or other such minor contradictions, their evidence cannot be totally discarded. The informant has stated that whatever he had stated about time, that was only by estimation. 17. The submission of learned senior counsel that the other two co-accused, who had faced the trial separately, have been acquitted after the trial, is of no help to the defence, as there is no allegation on the other accused persons to have fired the gun upon the deceased, which allegation is specific against this accused only. 18. On the basis of the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth any interference by this Court. 19. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 05.10.2007 and Order of sentence dated 08.10.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 2005, convicting and sentencing the appellant Sarat Chandra Mahatha @ Suruwa, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, which we hereby, affirm. The appellant is already in custody, undergoing the sentence. 20. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.