JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 18.02.2015 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Bahraich in Session Trial No.102 of 2011 (State v. Kaushal Kumar & Another), arising out of Case Crime No.336 of 2009, under Section 302 IPC connected with Session Trial No.103 of 2011 (State v. Kaushal Kumar Verma), arising out of Case Crime No.362 of 2009, under Section 3/25 Arms Act and Session Trial No.104 of 2011 (State v. Ram Naresh Verma), arising out of Case Crime No.363 of 2009, under Section 3/25, Police Station Rupaideeha, District Bahraich, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellants Kaushal Kumar Verma and Ram Naresh Verma and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/-each under section 302 IPC, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo six months additional imprisonment and for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 3/25 Arms Act, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo three months additional imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Narrated concisely, the prosecution case against the appellants is that on 30.06.2009 the complainant Sanvari Devi filed a written report exhibit Ka-1 stating therein that her husband -Jiledar Verma helped one Hanuman Prasad Verma in the dispute between Hanuman Prasad Verma, Kaushal Kumar Verma and Ram Naresh Verma due to which they always felt inimical towards her husband. In the night of 29/30.06.2009 her husband Jiledar Verma was sleeping inside the house, she was lying next to him and her daughter Mithilesh Devi and son Vinay Kumar Verma were sleeping in the ‘basare’ of ‘Angan’, around 02:00 a.m. in the night from eastern door of the house Kaushal Kumar Verma and Ram Naresh Verma came to her husband, immediately both of them were awake. The accused-appellants pushed her husband and fired with a country-made pistol upon him due to which he immediately died. The entire incident was witnessed by the complainant herself, her daughter and her son in the light of a lantern. On raising alarm, Hanuman Prasad Verma and Ram Nivas Verma reached at the spot and saw the accused-appellants fleeing away. 3. A first information report was lodged on 30.06.2009 at 04:15 a.m., registered at Case Crime No.336/2009, under Section 302 IPC. On raising alarm, Hanuman Prasad Verma and Ram Nivas Verma reached at the spot and saw the accused-appellants fleeing away. 3. A first information report was lodged on 30.06.2009 at 04:15 a.m., registered at Case Crime No.336/2009, under Section 302 IPC. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. R.K. Jayant, PW-6. The antemortem injuries as per postmortem report (exhibit Ka-4/1) reads as follows: ^^1& vXus;kL= izos'k dk ?kko ,fj;k 2lseh x isV dh xqnk dh xgjkbZ rdA QVk isV ij lkeus dh vksj nkfguh rjQ vkSj mij rd nkfgus mij ekStwn FkhA ?kko ds pkjksa rjQ dkfyek ,oa VSVksbu ekStwn FkkA ?kko dk fdukjk vUnj rjQ eqM+k gqvk FkkA 2& Qk;j vkeZ bUtjh dh izos'k ?kko 2lseha x 1-5 lseha x isV dh xqgk dh xgjkbZ rd ekStwn Fkk tks isV ds nkfgus rjQ 3 x 5 lseha ukfHk ls ckgj dh rjQ FkkA ?kko ds pkjksa rjQ Cysdfuax ,oa VSVksbu ekStwn Fkh vkSj fdukjs vUnj dh rjQ eqM+s FksA 3& mudks fiu ds vkdkj ds pqHks gq, ck#n ds d.k isV ds lkeus ekStwn Fks ftldh ,fj;k 10-5lseha x 10 lseha ds {ks=Qy esa FksA vkUrfjd ijh{k.k esa ef'r"d lQsn (pale) IkM+ x;k FkkA Iyq;qjk fpFkM+k QVk gqvk FkkA nkfguk o cka;k QsQM+k QVk gqvk FkkA ck;sa QsQM+s esa -02 IykfLVd osfMax ds VqdM+s izkIr gq, FksA isjhdkfMZ;e o g`n; QVk gqvk FkkA psLV dh dSfoVh esa 1 yhVj jDr ekStwn FkkA isjhVksfu;e QVh gqbZ FkhA mnj ds xqgk esa 2-5 yhVj [kwu] osfMx ihlst vkSj ,d irregular jky Big metallic 'kkV izkIr gqvkA vek'k; esa 150 ,e-,y- isLVh QwM eSVsfj;y ekStwn FkkA NksVh vkar esa xSl ekStwn FkhA cM+h vkar esa ey o xSl ekStwn FkhA ;d`r QVk gqvk FkkA iSafdz;kt QVh gqbZ FkhA Iyhgk isy (Pale) ,oa 100 xzke dUnk xqnkZ nkfguh QVk FkkA cka;k Pale FkkA^^ 4. The case was investigated by Sub Inspector Devendra Kumar Mishra, PW-7, who submitted charge sheet exhibit Ka-15, after completing investigation, the charge was framed against the appellants under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act on 30.01.2012 by the trial court to which the accused-appellants denied and claimed trial. 5. To bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. 6. 5. To bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. 6. PW-1 Smt. Ram Sanvari, complainant of the case and eye witness has categorically substantiated the entire incident which took place in the night of 29/30.06.2009 when she along with her husband was sleeping inside the house and the accused-appellants entered from eastern door of the house, fired a shot with country-made pistol on her husband, who died at the spot. The entire incident was witnessed by her daughter and son, who were also sleeping inside the house. The report of the incident was scribed by a villager, which was submitted by her in the police station concerned. 7. PW-2 Mithilesh Devi daughter of the deceased and complainant has categorically stated that the incident took place around 02:00 a.m. in the night when her parents were sleeping in the room and she was lying in the courtyard along with her brother, the accused-appellants entered from the eastern side of the house, she was awaking and identified them in the light of the lantern, who fired on her father and he died at the spot. She has specifically mentioned that she saw the accused-appellants shooting his father and has also stated that Hanuman Prasad Verma and Ram Nivas Verma reached the spot after hue and cry. 8. PW-3 Vinay Kumar Verma son of the deceased and complainant has substantiated the entire incident and corroborated the facts stated by his mother PW-1 and his sister PW-2. He has also stated witnessing the incident in the light of lantern, which was lit the entire night on a plastic table. His father died at the spot. 9. PW-4 Head Constable, Upendra Kumar Yadav has proved chik F.I.R. exhibit Ka-2 and G.D. Exhibit Ka-3 in his statement and has also stated that the first information report was lodged on 30.06.2009 at 04:15 a.m. 10. His father died at the spot. 9. PW-4 Head Constable, Upendra Kumar Yadav has proved chik F.I.R. exhibit Ka-2 and G.D. Exhibit Ka-3 in his statement and has also stated that the first information report was lodged on 30.06.2009 at 04:15 a.m. 10. PW-5 Ram Iqbal S.S.I. has proved the site plan exhibit Ka-4, inquest report exhibit Ka-5, letter of R.I. exhibit Ka-6, Challan of dead body exhibit Ka-7, letter of Chief Medical Officer exhibit Ka-8, sample of seal exhibit Ka-9, Photo of dead body exhibit Ka-10, recovery memo of cartridge exhibit Ka-11 and recovery memo of bloodstained and plain mud exhibit Ka-12 and has substantiated the fact that the case was registered at Case Crime No.336/2009 under Section 302 against the accused-appellants Kaushal Kumar Verma on the basis of written report filed by the complainant of the case. He has also proved the recovery of alleged weapon used in the commission of crime. 11. PW-6 Dr. R.K. Jayant has proved the postmortem report exhibit Ka-4/1 in his oral testimony and has stated the cause of death appears to be antemortem injuries. 12. PW-7 Devendra Kumar Mishra, Sub Inspector is the subsequent Investigating Officer of the present case, who took the investigation from Sub Inspector Ram Iqbal and finally submitted charge sheet under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellants, which is exhibit Ka-15. 13. PW-8 Avadh Narain Yadav has prepared the site plan of the recovery spot exhibit Ka-16 and charge sheet exhibit Ka-17 & 18 and proved in his oral testimony alleging therein that the case under Section 3/25 Arms Act was registered at Case Crime Nos.362/2009 and 363/2009 on 18.07.2009 at 15:30 hours. After commencing the investigation, he recorded the statement of the witnesses and accordingly submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellants. 14. PW-9 Constable Vinay Kumar Mishra has proved the chik F.I.R. exhibit Ka-19 and copy of G.D. exhibit Ka20 in his oral testimony pertaining to case under Section 3/25 Arms Act. 15. PW-10 Dharmendra Pratap Yadav has proved recovery memo of country-made pistol exhibit Ka-13 in his oral testimony and has stated that the same was recovered from a room of accused Ram Naresh wherein both the accused confessed their crime. 16. Incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied allegations of the prosecution and claimed false implication in the present case. 16. Incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied allegations of the prosecution and claimed false implication in the present case. The recovery of any weapon has also been categorically denied by the accused-appellants. No evidence either oral or documentary has been adduced in defence. 17. The trial court held that the appellants committed the said incident and the prosecution established the circumstance, proving their guilt under section 302 IPC & Section 3/25 Arms Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/-each under section 302 IPC and for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 3/25 Arms Act. Aggrieved by the verdict of conviction, the appellants preferred this appeal. 18. Heard Shri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Chandra Shekhar Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 19. Shri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the entire prosecution story is false and the accused-appellants have wrongly been implicated in the same, apparently, it appears to be a hit and run case, no one has witnessed as to who murdered the deceased. It has also been submitted that the F.I.R. is ante time. It could not be lodged at 04:15 a.m. It has been lodged with the connivance of the police. 20. He has further submitted that there was no motive to murder the deceased as the alleged story regarding the dispute and episode of Hanuman Prasad Verma is baseless and there is no connection and relation between Hanuman Prasad Verma and the deceased. He has also argued that the recovery memo was not prepared in presence of independent witnesses and none has been produced during evidence. There are major contradictions in the statement of PW-2, who is alleged to be eye witness of the incident. 21. Further, it has been argued that no public witness other than the complainant and his family members has been adduced to corroborate the alleged averment and the deposition of three witnesses of fact cannot be relied upon due to major contradictions and discrepancies and on the count that all of them are interested witness. 22. Per contra, learned AGA for the State, contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of appellants in the commission of crime in the present case. 22. Per contra, learned AGA for the State, contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of appellants in the commission of crime in the present case. The FIR version has fully been supported by medical and ocular evidence, based on the said evidence, the court below rightly convicted the appellants and the impugned judgment warrants no interference. 23. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned judgement and order as well as material on record. 24. In the instant case, the deceased Jiledar Verma was shot fired at 02:00 a.m. on 30.06.2009 by the accused-appellants, consequent to which he died at the spot. The said fact is substantiated by the averments of the first information report, deposition of the eyewitness count and medical evidence. 25. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised vital question regarding lodging of the first information report to be ante-time, on the premise that the complainant, first informed her brother-in-law and after he reached the place of occurrence, she proceeded for police station concerned and lodged the first information report. Indisputably the incident took place around 02:00 a.m. on 30.06.2009 and the first information report was lodged on 30.06.2009 at 04:15 a.m. In this context the oral testimony of PW-1, complainant and eyewitness of the alleged crime, is to be taken into account, where she has categorically stated that she lodged the first information report at the police after getting it scribed by a villager, though in her cross-examination she has also stated about the information being forwarded to her brother-in-law and the report being lodged after he arrived at the place of occurrence, but such statement cannot falsify the fact that the first information report was lodged at 04:15 a.m., which is also corroborated and substantiated by the prosecution documents namely chik F.I.R. and G.D. as well. The first information report of the incident, which took place at 02:00 a.m. on 30.06.2009, has been lodged at 04:15 a.m. on the same day neither appears to be ante-time nor any delay can be attributed to the same. 26. It has also been argued that the first information report was lodged with the interference of police as the brother-in-law of the complainant called the police which reached the spot before lodging of first information report. 26. It has also been argued that the first information report was lodged with the interference of police as the brother-in-law of the complainant called the police which reached the spot before lodging of first information report. Mere presence of police at the spot can in no manner be attributed towards interference by the police, specially in absence of any such corroborative evidence. 27. We, now advert to other contention, like motive as has been canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants. So far as motive is concerned, since this being a case based on eyewitness count of the informant, who is wife of the deceased, supported well by witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 present at the spot, it relegates into insignificance. Further, it has been contended that Hanuman Prasad Verma was neither related to the deceased nor was a witness to the alleged incident between him and the accused-appellants, as such, there is no motive to kill him. It has also been argued that no evidence either oral or documentary has been placed to establish the motive. It is well settled that where the direct evidence is worthy of credence and can be believed then the question of motive does not carry much weight. 28. In this context, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal; (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 150 held as under: “In fact, motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution to explain what actually prompted or excited him to commit a particular crime. In Shivji Genu Mohite Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55 , this Court held that in case the prosecution is not able to discover an impelling motive, that could not reflect upon the credibility of a witness proved to be a reliable eyewitness. Evidence as to motive would, no doubt, go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would form one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But that would not be so in cases where there are eye-witnesses of credibility, though even in such cases if a motive is properly proved, such proof would strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. Such evidence would form one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But that would not be so in cases where there are eye-witnesses of credibility, though even in such cases if a motive is properly proved, such proof would strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. But that does not mean that if motive is not established, the evidence of an eyewitness is rendered untrustworthy. It is settled legal proposition that even if the absence of motive as alleged is accepted that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only by the reason of the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. (Vide Hari Shankar Vs. State of U.P., (1996) 9 SCC 40 ; Bikau Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 12 SCC 616 ; and Abu Thakir & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 5 SCC 91 ).” 29. In the case of Lokesh Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka; (2012) 3 SCC 196 , the Supreme Court held as under: “As regards motive, it is well established that if the prosecution case is fully established by reliable ocular evidence coupled with medical evidence, the issue of motive loses practically all relevance. In this case, we find the ocular evidence led in support of the prosecution case wholly reliable and see no reason to discard it.” 30. In the present case, the commission of crime on the said date, time and place has been fully established, substantiated and corroborated by the eye-witnesses present at the time of commission of crime, namely, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. PW-1, wife of the deceased and complainant of the case was lying next to the deceased, as such, she is the most natural witness to the scene of occurrence. She has deposed as PW-1 and fully established the prosecution case, as such the issue of motive looses all its relevance. 31. PW-1, wife of the deceased and complainant of the case was lying next to the deceased, as such, she is the most natural witness to the scene of occurrence. She has deposed as PW-1 and fully established the prosecution case, as such the issue of motive looses all its relevance. 31. It has further been argued that the place of occurrence is not established as per the site plan prepared by the prosecution. Further, it has been elaborated by learned counsel for the appellants that the entry and exit of the accused-appellants, place of firing and the source of light are not clearly shown in the site plan. As far as the place of occurrence is concerned, all the three eyewitness have established the same in their deposition and mere non indication of place of firing will not falsify the entire incident. The question of witnessing the incident in the night vis-a-vis source of light, it has been categorically established by the oral testimony as well as documentary evidence that a lantern was lit near the place of occurrence, which was sufficient enough to recognize the accused-appellants, which were known to the deceased and his family. A little difference in the statement of witnesses regarding entry/exit wound of accused-appellants, place of lantern, raising of alarm etc. do not hit the root of the case, more so, in view of the fact that the PW-1 was lying next to the deceased and has witnessed the entire incident, which is more than sufficient to establish the prosecution case. There is no reason to discard or disbelieve the oral testimony of PW-1 as an eye-witness of the incident. 32. Learned A.G.A. has referred the following cases: (1) Mohan Singh and another v. State of M.P.; 1999 CRI.L.J. 1334 wherein it has been observed as under: “21. In Karnail Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2119 , this Court held that where it is proved beyond doubt that the evidence of the eye witnesses are trust worthy in a case where the accused person committed murder by gun shots, the inconsistency between the opinion of expert and the eye witnesses relating to the distance from which gun shots were fired carried no weight. If the eye witnesses stand the test of their credibility they have to be believed. If the eye witnesses stand the test of their credibility they have to be believed. Looking to the present case we see even the doctor’s opinion is not clear as he admitted that he cannot give clear opinion about the distance from which the shot was fired. But he records that it was fired from higher pedestal which corroborates with the prosecution story. This, coupled with the fact that the eye witnesses also corroborate to the same effect, the submission on behalf of the accused for all the aforesaid reasons with respect to the first point cannot be sustained. (2) Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh; 2017 CRI.L.J.291 wherein it has been observed as under: “29. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. (See Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649 ; Leela Ram (dead) through Duli Chand Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (1999) 9 SCC 525 ; Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 186 ; Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191 ; Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 ; Shyamal Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646 and Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and Anr., (2013) 12 SCC 796 ). 33. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191 ; Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 ; Shyamal Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646 and Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and Anr., (2013) 12 SCC 796 ). 33. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that there is discrepancy between the medical and ocular evidence regarding injuries received and found on the body of the deceased. As per oral deposition of the doctor, the deceased received serious firearm injuries which resulted in his death and absence of exit wound do not make much of difference as there is a possibility of pellets being inside the body thereby not creating any exit wound. It has also been argued that no ballistic report has been obtained by the prosecution regarding the fire shot being made by the weapon recovered from the accused-appellants for which they were charged under Section 3/25 of Arms Act. It has also been placed that no forensic report either has been procured by the prosecution to connect the entire manner of the incident. 34. In this context the most important and vital question to be considered and assessed is the fact of deposition of eye-witness which establishes the factum of commission of crime. Even if ballistic and forensic reports have not been received, this fact cannot be falsified that the eye-witness saw the accused-appellants firing shot on the deceased due to which he died. Moreover, the injuries received by the deceased do substantiate the manner of commission of crime as stated by the eye-witness. In such circumstances, the prosecution case can in no manner be said to be false or doubtful in absence of ballistic and forensic reports as argued by learned counsel for the appellants. 35. Further contention is that, the present case is a hit and run case and nobody has seen, who actually fired a shot on the deceased. It has been argued on behalf of the accused-appellants that there were differences between the deceased and his elder son pertaining to his first wife, as such, there is a possibility that the family members of first wife or his son might have killed the deceased. Admittedly, there is no evidence which may corroborate the said fact. It has been argued on behalf of the accused-appellants that there were differences between the deceased and his elder son pertaining to his first wife, as such, there is a possibility that the family members of first wife or his son might have killed the deceased. Admittedly, there is no evidence which may corroborate the said fact. Moreover the son of the deceased separated from his first wife long back and married again, as such, it appears to be too remote to connect with this crime. 36. As far as the recovery of weapon from the accused-appellants is concerned, in this context deposition of PW-5 and PW-8 may be taken into account, who have proved recovery memo exhibit Ka-13 and site plan of the same exhibit Ka-16 and also charge sheet exhibit Ka-17 against the accused-appellants. The testimony of the Investigating Officer clearly establishes the recovery of weapon from the accused-appellants. It has been argued that there is no forensic report on record which may connect and establish the weapon with the pellet which caused the death of the deceased. All the documents relating to the recovery have been substantiated by the prosecution witnesses. Moreover the eyewitness count has clearly substantiated the commission of crime, as such the recovery of weapon from the accused-appellants do not make much of difference. Even if it is presumed that there was no recovery of weapon, as such, either from the accused-appellants or else where, even then testimony of reliable and credible eye-witness cannot be belied and held untrustworthy. 37. In this context, learned A.G.A. has referred the case of Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab alias Kuti Biswas and another; 2013 CRI.L.J. 4212 wherein it has been observed as under: “31. The learned counsel for the respondent has urged before us that there has been no recovery of weapon from the accused and hence, the prosecution case deserves to be thrown overboard and, therefore, the judgment of acquittal does not warrant interference. The learned counsel for the respondent has urged before us that there has been no recovery of weapon from the accused and hence, the prosecution case deserves to be thrown overboard and, therefore, the judgment of acquittal does not warrant interference. In Lakshmi and Others v. State of U.P. [JT 2002 (6) SC 392 : 2002 (7) SCC 198 ], this Court has ruled that undoubtedly, the identification of the body, cause of death and recovery of weapon with which the injury may have been inflicted on the deceased are some of the important factors to be established by the prosecution in an ordinary given case to bring home the charge of offence under Section 302 IPC. This, however, is not an inflexible rule. It cannot be held as a general and broad proposition of law that where these aspects are not established, it would be fatal to the case of the prosecution and in all cases and eventualities, it ought to result in the acquittal of those who may be charged with the offence of murder. 32. In Lakhan Sao v. State of Bihar and Another [JT 2000 (5) SC 515 : 2000 (9) SCC 82 ], it has been opined that the non-recovery of the pistol or spent cartridge does not detract from the case of the prosecution where the direct evidence is acceptable. 33. In State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh and Others [JT 2011 (10) SC 112 : 2011 (9) SCC 115 ], this Court has expressed that mere non-recovery of pistol or cartridge does not detract the case of the prosecution where clinching and direct evidence is acceptable. Likewise, absence of evidence regarding recovery of used pellets, bloodstained clothes, etc. cannot be taken or construed as no such occurrence had taken place. Thus, when there is ample unimpeachable ocular evidence and the same has been corroborated by the medical evidence, non-recovery of the weapon does not affect the prosecution case. 38. As is clear from the aforesaid discussion, as per the prosecution the accused-appellants took active part in firing shot on the deceased on the date of incident, which hit and caused death of Jiledar Verma (deceased). The entire incident was witnessed by PW-1, wife and informant of the case, who was lying next to the deceased and PW-2 as well as PW-3, who were present at the place of occurrence. The entire incident was witnessed by PW-1, wife and informant of the case, who was lying next to the deceased and PW-2 as well as PW-3, who were present at the place of occurrence. In our opinion, the guilt of the accused-appellants has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 39. We, thus, are of the opinion that the trial court has arrived at the conclusion on the basis of prosecution evidence that the appellants namely Kaushal Kumar Verma and Ram Naresh Verma were guilty of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 of Arms Act and sentenced them to undergo for life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. and three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 3/25 of Arms Act thereby convicting them under the said sections. 40. For all the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Sessions Court and dislodge the same, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. 41. The appellants are in jail. They shall remain in jail to serve out sentence awarded by the trial court in pursuance of the impugned judgment and order. 42. The Senior Registrar is directed to ensure the compliance by forwarding the copy of the judgment to District Judge, Bahraich forthwith.