JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by accused No.1 being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.10.2012 passed by the FTC Chikmagalur, in SC.No.84/2010. 2. Brief case of the prosecution is that deceased Manjunatha and accused No.1Sundaresh are brothers and sons of Puttaswamy. They were all residing together at Bombailu Village. Puttaswamy and accused No.1Sundaresh were borrowing loan from one Julegowda @ Chandregowda and utilizing the same for their personal purposes. Deceased Manjunatha was the only earning member and looking after the entire family. The deceased was owning half acre of land near his house in which he was intending to raise ginger crop. Whenever he used to ask money from his father Puttaswamy and accused No.1Sundaresh to raise ginger crop, there used to be quarrel between them and accused No.1 used to tell that he would do away with the life of the deceased Manjunatha. In that backdrop, on 7.4.2010, deceased Manjunatha returned from Chikmagalur and after taking bath, as usual he went out of the house and thereafter he came back to his house along with PW.3Manjunatha (elder brother of PW.1) at about 8.30 p.m. Thereafter PW.1, deceased, accused No.1 and PW.3 had their dinner in the kitchen and were talking with each other. At that time, Puttaswamy, father of the deceased was sleeping in the hall. At about 9.30 p.m., when they were sitting and talking with each other, suddenly quarrel took place between accused No.1 and the deceased Manjunatha in respect of the money. Thereafter, accused No.1 went out of the kitchen, took a gun which was kept in the hall and fired at the deceased, as a result of which, deceased Manjunatha sustained gunshot injuries near left cheek below the neck and there was profuse bleeding. Immediately he was shifted to the hall under the impression that he was alive. In the meanwhile, accused No.1 threw the gun and ran away from the spot. At about 11.30 p.m., Police Inspector of Mallandur Police Station received the information and he came to the spot along with his staff and Shivakumar PSI and received the complaint from PW.1, on the basis of which he registered a case in Crime No.45/2010 against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused. 3. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance and after following the procedure, as the case was triable by the Sessions Court, he committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court after taking cognizance, by securing the presence of the accused, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, has framed the charge. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, as such the trial was fixed. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 14 witnesses as PWs.1 to 14 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P23 and the Material Objects as MO.Nos.1 to 10. Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material as against him. Accused denied the same, however he has not led any evidence on his behalf. The trial Court after hearing both the parties has passed the impugned judgment and order convicting accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act. However, accused No.2 came to be acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. Assailing the said judgment and order of conviction, accused No.1 is before this Court in the present appeal. 5. We have heard Sri Krishnaji Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 and Smt.Namitha Mahesh, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No.1 apart from urging ground Nos.9 to 17 in the appeal memo would contend that the prosecution has examined only interested witnesses, based on such evidence the trial Court has erroneously convicted the appellant without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. According to the prosecution, PW.1 was sitting on the left side of the deceased and PW.3 was sitting on the right side, but there is a contradiction in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and hence, the presence of PW.1 at the place of incident itself is doubtful. If really PW.1 was sitting on the left side of the deceased at a short distance, definitely she should have also received the gunshot injuries. Non-receiving of even a single injury by PW.1 creates a doubt about her presence at the place of incident. If really PW.1 was sitting on the left side of the deceased at a short distance, definitely she should have also received the gunshot injuries. Non-receiving of even a single injury by PW.1 creates a doubt about her presence at the place of incident. If accused No.1 has fired in the place where the prosecution has alleged, the gun powder must have been fallen, but the same was not seized by the Investigating Officer while drawing the spot mahazarat Ex.P2. If really accused has fired towards the deceased by standing, the entry wound and exit wound would have been towards downgradient. But in the case on hand, the entry wound and exit wound are parallel. The deceased might have suffered the said injuries when he had been for hunting. Only with an intention to involve the accused, a false case has been registered against him. Though there were so many houses situated near the place of incident, no neighbours were examined by the prosecution. Information about the alleged incident has been given over phone and that would be the first information and not the complaint. Even non-recording of the statement by the Investigating Officer immediately after the incident, creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. Motive put forth by the prosecution is not proved as all the witnesses have categorically admitted that the relationship between the deceased and accused No.1 was cordial and there was no animosity to cause the death of the deceased Manjunatha. The trial Court without proper appreciation of the evidence on record, has wrongly convicted the accused. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and prayed for acquittal of the appellant-accused No.1. 7. Percontra, the learned HCGP for the respondent-State would contend that PWs.1 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident and they have categorically deposed about the act of the accused prior to the incident and at the time of incident. Under such circumstances, motive does not play a relevant role. 7. Percontra, the learned HCGP for the respondent-State would contend that PWs.1 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident and they have categorically deposed about the act of the accused prior to the incident and at the time of incident. Under such circumstances, motive does not play a relevant role. The gunshot injuries caused due to very close range and in that light the entry wound and exit wound would be on parallel line and even the evidence of PW.9, the ballistic expert clearly indicates the fact that the gunMO.No.1 has been used very recently and firing has taken place with the said gun and the said gun was seized at the place of incident. On appreciation of the entire material on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. Appellant-accused No.1 has not made out any good grounds so as to allow the appeal and to acquit the accused. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and order. 8. As aforesaid, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses as PWs.1 to 14. (i) PW.1 is the wife of the deceased. She is also an eye witness to the incident in question. She has filed the complaint as per Ex.P1. She has deposed that in the month of April, on 7th Wednesday at about 9.30 p.m., herself, her husband, her brother Manjunatha and accused No.1 after having their dinner were sitting and talking in the kitchen, as accused No.1 had spent ginger amount, deceased asked him as to why he had spent the said amount, at that time, accused No.1 went out of the house. When they were sitting in the kitchen, accused No.1 came back with gun and fired towards left cheek of the deceased. Immediately, deceased fell down with injury on his left cheek. Thereafter, accused No.1 ran away from the spot. When they saw the deceased, they came to know that he was already dead and the villagers gathered. The deceased was shifted to another room. Thereafter, police came and received the information and registered the case against the accused. During the course of her crossexamination, it has been elicited that deceased, accused No.1 and her father-in-law were in good terms. It has been further elicited that herself and her husband were sitting side by side. The deceased was shifted to another room. Thereafter, police came and received the information and registered the case against the accused. During the course of her crossexamination, it has been elicited that deceased, accused No.1 and her father-in-law were in good terms. It has been further elicited that herself and her husband were sitting side by side. Accused No.1 fired from left side and at that time she has not lost consciousness. Immediately after the incident, her brother chased accused No.1 and after ten minutes he came back, but by that time deceased was dead. Other suggestions were denied by this witness. (ii) PW.2 is the panch witness to the spot mahazar Ex.P2 and seizure mahazar Ex.P3 whereunder the clothes of the deceased were seized, so also the inquest mahazar Ex.P4. He also speaks about the accused borrowing the money, spending the same due to which there was a galata between the accused and the deceased. During the course of his crossexamination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of this witness. (iii) PW.3 is the brother of PW.1. He is also an eye witness to the incident in question. He has deposed about the dispute between accused No.1 and the deceased with reference to spending of money by accused No.1. He has further deposed that accused No.1 talked roughly with the deceased and thereafter accused No.1 went out of the house and immediately he brought the gun and fired towards the deceased Manjunatha, as a result of which Manjunatha fell down and he saw the gunshot injuries on the left cheek of the deceased. When he went and saw the deceased, he was already dead and accused by throwing the gun, ran away and he also chased him. During the course of crossexamination, nothing has been elicited to discard the evidence of this witness. (iv) PW.4 is the witness who received a phone call from CW.9. Immediately he came to the house of the deceased where he saw the deceased Manjunatha dead with gunshot injuries. During the course of his cross-examination, nothing has been elicited. During the course of crossexamination, nothing has been elicited to discard the evidence of this witness. (iv) PW.4 is the witness who received a phone call from CW.9. Immediately he came to the house of the deceased where he saw the deceased Manjunatha dead with gunshot injuries. During the course of his cross-examination, nothing has been elicited. (v) PW.5 is the neighbour who heard the firing sound on 7.4.2010 at about 9.30 p.m. Immediately he came out of his house and heard the weeping voice of PW.1 and thereafter he went to the house of the deceased where he saw the dead body of the deceased, PWs.1 and 3. He has also spoken about the injuries suffered by the deceased and shifting of the dead body to the hall. Thereafter informed the said fact to the police over phone. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard his evidence. (vi) PW.6 is the witness who has seen accused No.1 along with single barrel gun. But he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been treated as hostile. Even in his cross-examination, nothing has been elicited. (vii) PW.7 is the Secretary of Village Panchyat who issued the property extract of the house property where the incident in question has taken place, as per Ex.P7. (viii) PW.8 is the Police Constable who brought the clothes of the deceased in a sealed box after postmortem examination, carried the same for chemical examination. (ix) PW.9 is the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, who has deposed that at the request of Police Inspector, he examined the articles, including MO.No.1gun and he gave his opinion as per Exs.P8, P9 and P10. During the course of crossexamination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard his evidence. (x) PW.10 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and issued PM report as per Ex.P11. (xi) PW.11 is the PSI who apprehended the accused and produced before the Investigating Officer along with the report as per Ex.P13. (xii) PW.12 is the Police Inspector who partly investigated the case and handed over further investigation to PW.14. (xiii) PW.13 is the PSI who received the phone call from PW.5 and thereafter he came to the place of incident and received the complaint as per Ex.P1, on the basis of which he registered the case in Crime No.45/2010. (xii) PW.12 is the Police Inspector who partly investigated the case and handed over further investigation to PW.14. (xiii) PW.13 is the PSI who received the phone call from PW.5 and thereafter he came to the place of incident and received the complaint as per Ex.P1, on the basis of which he registered the case in Crime No.45/2010. (xiv) PW.14 is the Police Inspector who conducted further investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. 9. From the above evidence, let us consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused. It is not in dispute that deceased sustained the gunshot injuries. Even the doctorPW.10 who conducted the postmortem examination has deposed that the deceased died due to gunshot injuries. In that light, it can safely be held that death of the deceased was homicidal death and it was not a natural death. It is the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that motive has not been proved by the prosecution to show the animosity between the accused and the deceased. But as could be seen from the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 5, they have categorically deposed that PW.1, PW.3, deceased and accused No.1 were sitting in the kitchen after their dinner and at that time, deceased asked accused No.1 as to why he spent the ginger amount which was borrowed from the house of Gowda for his personal purpose. PW.1 tried to pacify the quarrel, but accused No.1 left the place, brought the gun and fired towards deceased Manjunatha, as a result of which the deceased Manjunatha sustained injuries on his left cheek and died. Even PW.3, the brother of PW.1 has reiterated about the talks between the accused and the deceased. Even the complaint at Ex.P1 clarifies the fact that accused No.1 and father of the deceased Puttaswamy were not doing any work. It was the deceased who alone was maintaining the family. Accused No.1 and Puttaswamy used to bring the money from the house of one Gowda and used to spend for their personal purposes. This aspect clearly goes to show that there used to be frequent quarrels between them in respect of borrowing the ginger amount and spending for the personal purposes. Accused No.1 and Puttaswamy used to bring the money from the house of one Gowda and used to spend for their personal purposes. This aspect clearly goes to show that there used to be frequent quarrels between them in respect of borrowing the ginger amount and spending for the personal purposes. The entire evidence clearly goes to show that prior to the incident in question, there was a quarrel between accused No.1 and the deceased in respect of spending of ginger amount. During the course of quarrel accused No.1 left the place and brought the gun and fired towards the deceased. In this behalf, the prosecution has clearly established the motive. Be that as it may, when there are eye witnesses to the alleged incident who have categorically deposed that accused No.1 brought the gun and fired towards the deceased and due to which he sustained injuries to his left cheek and died on the spot the aspect of motive does not play an important role. It is by now well settled in catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court that in cases based on eye witnesses account of the incident, proof or absence of a motive is not of any significant consequence. If evidence of eye witnesses is acceptable, the other evidence that might have been produced recedes to the back seat, that too when witnesses are creditworthy. 10. Though during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 has contended that the deceased might have suffered the injuries when he had been for hunting and false case has been registered to take revenge against accused No.1, as could be seen from Ex.P17, the photograph, it clearly indicates the fact that at the place of incident, there was a pool of blood which itself shows that the alleged incident has taken place in the kitchen and not anywhere else as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. In that light, the said contention cannot be accepted. 11. The next contention of the appellant’s counsel is that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be considered. Merely because the witnesses examined by the prosecution are relatives, they cannot be termed as interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be discarded. In that light, the said contention cannot be accepted. 11. The next contention of the appellant’s counsel is that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be considered. Merely because the witnesses examined by the prosecution are relatives, they cannot be termed as interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be discarded. It is well settled principle of law that evidence of such witnesses has to be looked into by the Court carefully and cautiously. On careful scrutiny of the evidence though they are the close relatives, we find that there is no exaggeration or concoction of the evidence placed by the prosecution. Even no reason is forthcoming as to why he has been falsely implicated and what advantage they get if accused is convicted. In that light, the contention taken up by the learned counsel for the appellant is also not acceptable. 12. The main argument on which the learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 has concentrated is that the entry wound and exit wound shown in the PM report contradicts with the oral evidence which has been produced by the prosecution. As could be seen from the evidence of PW.10, wound No.1entry wound was found on the left cheek and upper neck area about 4 feet 7 inches from the foot and exit wound was found on the backside of neck about 2 inches below from the occipital protruberance and exit wound No.4 was 2 cms. below wound No.3 and wound No.3 was on the backside of the neck about 2 inches below the occipital protruberance. PW.10 has also deposed that exit wound No.5 was 2 cms. below wound No.3. MO.Nos.6 and 7, the lead pieces were removed from the body of the deceased. Even as could be seen from the PM report at Ex.P11, the doctor has opined that death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of gunshot injuries. The picture which was drawn in the said PM report, would indicate that immediately after the fire at a short distance, there was one entry wound and there were as many exist wounds which itself indicates the fact that when the gunshot injuries fired by accused No.1 from a very short distance, after the lead pieces entered the body, they have scattered while coming from exit wounds at different places of the body of the deceased. The evidence of PW.9, the Assistant Director of FSL, would disclose that after examination of MO.No.1, he has opined that the said gun was illegally manufactured and it has got signs of discharge and was in working condition. When the said single barrel gun which was manufactured illegally, was being used by filling the gun powder, then under such circumstances, there would not be single entry and exist wound like other bullet guns. When such a gun has been used at a short distance, the lead pieces after entry may exit from any angle and in that light there will not be any exact exit wounds. Even PWs.1 and 3 have categorically deposed that accused No.1 brought the gun and fired towards the deceased. The photograph at Ex.P17 clearly indicates that the room(kitchen) in which the alleged incident has taken place is very small one. Hence, the contention taken up by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is not acceptable. 13. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that PW.1 who was sitting by the left side of the deceased has not sustained any injuries when the accused has fired with the gun at a short distance, is concerned, there was no chance of receiving any injuries though she was sitting by the side of the deceased. Even PW.9 has opined that the injuries mentioned in the PM report may be caused due to firing at a distance from 2 to 9 feet, which itself shows that the accused might have stood at the very short distance and fired towards the deceased. In that light, PW.1 might have not received any injuries. Be that as it may, even it all depends as to how they were sitting, at what distance and to distance at which accused was standing at the time of firing. In this behalf, no material has been produced either by the prosecution or by the accused. Hence, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 does not stand to any reason and the same is rejected. 14. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Investigating Officer has not recovered the gun powder from the place of incident, while drawing the mahazarat Ex.P2. Hence, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 does not stand to any reason and the same is rejected. 14. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Investigating Officer has not recovered the gun powder from the place of incident, while drawing the mahazarat Ex.P2. But, Ex.P2 was drawn only after shifting of the body of the deceased to the hall under the impression that still he was alive. Be that as it may, when PWs.1 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the incident in question and nothing has been elicited from these witnesses to disbelieve their evidence and the deceased died due to the gunshot injuries suffered by him coupled with the fact that the doctorPW.10 who has conducted the autopsy, has opined that the deceased died due to gunshot injuries, then under such circumstances, non-recovery of gun powder does not create a doubt in the case of the prosecution. Non-recovery of the gun powder only amounts to lack of investigation and merely because there is a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer in conducting the investigation, accused cannot take advantage of the same, that too, when other clinching evidence points out the fact that it is the accused who committed the alleged offence. In that light, the said contention is also not sustainable in law and the same is rejected. 15. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the original records including the impugned judgment and order of conviction. There is no perversity or illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court so as to interfere with the same and it is liable to be confirmed. In the light of the discussion held by us, even on reappreciation of the entire evidence and material on record in the background of contentions put forth by the learned counsel for appellant-accused, we are unable to accede to any one of such contentions. We find no good grounds to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. The appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed.