JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 19th December, 2017 and 23rd December, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.136 of 2012, arising out of Muffasil Police Station Case No.02 of 2012 (G.R. No.05 of 2012), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that there are no eye witness, who had seen this appellant firing upon the deceased. As per him, all the witnesses, who deposed before the Court had reached the place of occurrence after the deceased was shot at, thus, those witnesses are unreliable. He submits that motive is absolutely missing in this case. He argues that it is the prosecution case that the deceased in injured state had divulged before the witnesses that it is this appellant, who shot at him, but it is doubtful whether the deceased was in a state of giving such statement or not. Though it is alleged that the murder weapon was recovered on the basis of confessional statement of the appellant, yet murder weapon was not sent for any scientific forensic examination. He submits that the bullet which was found in the body of the deceased was not matched with the murder weapon, which is fatal for the prosecution. He also argues that the recovery on the basis of alleged confessional statement should not be considered by this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the evidence of the eye witnesses would clearly suggest that it is this appellant, who had committed the murder. He also argues that the recovery on the basis of alleged confessional statement should not be considered by this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the evidence of the eye witnesses would clearly suggest that it is this appellant, who had committed the murder. Eye witnesses have seen this appellant, with a fire arm in his hand, leaving the room where the deceased and the appellant were there. He submits that the deceased disclosed that it is this appellant who had committed the murder. Thus, there is no room to disbelieve the statement of the witnesses. Since there are eye witnesses to the occurrence and their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and sentenced him. 4. The case of the prosecution is based on the fardbeyan of the informant, Sanjay Malua son of Suresh Malua, resident of Narseda, Tola Mundasai, PS Muffasil, District West Singhbhum, which was recorded by the Sub Inspector, B.D. Mishra on 02.01.2012. In the fardbeyan, the informant has stated that at about 07.00 p.m. in the evening one boy namely Soma Soy came running to him and informed that younger son of the informant Birendra Malua @ Laila has been shot at in the house of Nasir Malua by his friend Singrai Tanti @ Rodeya (appellant) resident of Saligutu and after firing appellant has fled away. On getting this information, the informant rushed to the place and saw his brother in an injured and unconscious state. There he was told by Sanju Malua that just now Singrai Tanti @ Rodeya (appellant) has fired on Birendra Malua (deceased) and fled away. Informant with the help of villagers took his brother for treatment to Chaibasa where the doctors declared him dead. He brought the dead body of his brother to his home. There in course of queries, he was told by Sanju Malua and Soma Soy that at around 6.30 p.m. in the evening Sanju Malua, Soma Soy and the deceased had been to Sanju Malua’s home and Singrai Tanti @ Rodeya who is a friend of the deceased, also followed them. They were preparing for consuming hadia on the new year eve. They were preparing for consuming hadia on the new year eve. Sanju Malua went to another room for bringing snacks (chakhna) and in the meantime, the appellant took out his pistol and fired on the deceased in front of Soma Soy, which hit the deceased on the left side of his chest. On hearing the sound of firing when Sanju Malua came out from the room, he saw that the deceased is lying in an injured state. On asking him, he told that the appellant has fired upon him and fled away. The informant claimed that the appellant has fired on the deceased and has killed him. 5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Muffasil Police Station Case No.2 of 2012 was registered for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 6. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet against the appellant for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Cognizance of the offence was taken by order dated 10.02.2012 and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, which were read over and explained to the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. Prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, had examined altogether seven prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Sanju Malua, P.W.2 Yogendra Malua, P.W.3 Sarsawati Malua, P.W.4 Sanjay Malua (Informant), P.W.5 Soma Soy, P.W.6 Dr. Dilip Kumar Sinha and P.W.7 Vishnudeo Mishra. In addition to examining the above witnesses, the prosecution also led the following documentary evidence: - Ext. 7. Prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, had examined altogether seven prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Sanju Malua, P.W.2 Yogendra Malua, P.W.3 Sarsawati Malua, P.W.4 Sanjay Malua (Informant), P.W.5 Soma Soy, P.W.6 Dr. Dilip Kumar Sinha and P.W.7 Vishnudeo Mishra. In addition to examining the above witnesses, the prosecution also led the following documentary evidence: - Ext. 1 Signature of P.W.1 Sanju Malua on his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ext.2 Signature of P.W.1 Sanju Malua on fardbeyan Ext.2/1 Signature of P.W.4 Sanjay Malua on fardbeyan Ext.2/2 Signature of Soma Soy P.W.5 on fardbeyan Ext.3 Signature of Yogendra Malua on inquest report Ext.3/1 Signature of Turam Sundi on inquest report Ext.3/2 Inquest Report Ext.4 Signature on carbon copy of seizure list Ext.5 Signature of P.W.5 Soma Soy on his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ext.6 Postmortem Report Ext.7 Registration of the case Ext.8 Formal F.I.R. Ext.9 Confessional statement leading to recovery of pistol Ext.10 Memo of arrest of accused Singrai Tanti Ext.11 Seizure list of pistol Ext.2/3 Seizure list of blood soaked soil Ext.12 Prosecution sanction order of D.M. to prosecute the accused Singrai Tanti u/s 25(1-B)A/26 of the Arms Act P.W.1 Sanju Malua has stated that the occurrence is of 2nd January, 2012 at around 6.30 p.m. in the evening. This witness, Soma and Laila @ Birendra Malua (deceased) and Rodeya (appellant) were all at their home. This witness had gone to the next room for bringing something for eating when Soma, Laila (deceased) and Rodeya (appellant) remained there. He heard loud sound of firing and Soma came to him running. They both rushed and saw that Rodeya (appellant) is fleeing and the deceased was falling. This witness took the deceased in his lap when he told that the appellant has fired on him. He saw bullet injury on the chest of the deceased. He sent Soma to the house of deceased for informing them. At that time the deceased was aged 15-16 years. Brother of the deceased Sanjay Malua and his sister Anita Tanti came there and they all were taking the deceased to Sadar Hospital but on the way when the deceased died, they took the dead body to their home. He has stated that he had also given his statement earlier before the Magistrate, which was read over and explained to him and finding the same to be correct, he had put his signature. He has stated that he had also given his statement earlier before the Magistrate, which was read over and explained to him and finding the same to be correct, he had put his signature. He has identified his signature on his statement, which was marked Ext.1. He has identified the appellant, who was present in Court. In cross examination, he has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 7 ½ -8 hrs. in the evening the appellant had gone to the police station. He has stated that at the time when he had put his signature, appellant was not present there. He stated that on the next day of the occurrence, i.e., 3rd January, he had gone to the police station and on that day at around 10 a.m. in the morning he had put his signature on the fardbeyan. Thereafter he never went to the police station He has further stated in his cross examination that at the time of occurrence, they were only four present and there are five rooms in his house. He stated that at that time his sister Saraswati Malua and his father were also present in home. The house of the deceased is adjacent to their house, and in the vicinity only the house of Mahesh Malua is there. On the date of occurrence since morning they were dancing with the music system. The place where they were dancing is at a distance of about 40-50 steps from their house. Except them, around 40-50 persons were dancing there. They had taken their food but had not taken any drink. They had taken food at around 12.00 hrs. day time. Thereafter they had not taken any food. In his cross examination, he has further stated that when he went to bring food, there was no dispute between Laila and Soma. He has stated that he did not see the appellant firing. It is not correct that Laila had not disclosed anything to him. It is not correct that he had not taken the deceased in his lap. It is also incorrect that they had not taken the deceased to the hospital. It is incorrect that before his reaching the place, the deceased became unconscious. It is incorrect that he had told to the police that after arrival of Sanjay and his sister, the deceased had become unconscious. It is also incorrect that they had not taken the deceased to the hospital. It is incorrect that before his reaching the place, the deceased became unconscious. It is incorrect that he had told to the police that after arrival of Sanjay and his sister, the deceased had become unconscious. He stated that when he had lifted the deceased, the deceased had disclosed about firing upon him by the appellant. When the deceased had disclosed about this, Soma and his sister Saraswati Malua were also present. It is incorrect that Soma Soy had fired on the deceased. It is also incorrect that this witness was also involved in the same. He has stated that on 3rd January, 2012 he had been to the Court with the police. Police had told him to state whatever he knows. He stated that on that day from 10 O’ clock till they went to the Magistrate, he was with the police. He stated that it is incorrect that the appellant had not killed the deceased. It is incorrect that to save himself and Soma, he is giving false statement. P.W. 2 Yogendra Malua has stated that the deceased is his own brother. He was killed two years ago in the evening in the house of Nasir Malua. When he was returning home, he could know that his brother has been killed. The villagers had given this information. He had seen the deceased who had firearm injury on his chest. He was told by Mukla, Nasir and Anita that deceased was killed by the appellant. He has identified his signature on the inquest report which is Ext.3. He has also identified the signature of Turam Sundi which is marked Ext. 3/1. Turam Sundi has died. He has identified the appellant who was present in Court. In cross examination he has stated that he got the information about the occurrence on the same day evening over his mobile. Police had come on the same night at about 8 O’ clock. The police had again come on the next day when they were interrogated. He stated that he had put his signature on the papers on the date of occurrence, at night. He has stated that he had not told the police that Mukla, Nasir and Anita had told him that appellant had killed the deceased. The police had again come on the next day when they were interrogated. He stated that he had put his signature on the papers on the date of occurrence, at night. He has stated that he had not told the police that Mukla, Nasir and Anita had told him that appellant had killed the deceased. P.W.3 Saraswati Malua has stated that the occurrence is of two years ago. It was 2nd day of new year. She was preparing tea at home and Sanju was preparing snacks (chakhna). Soma, Birendra @ Laila (deceased), Roniya @ Singram (appellant) were sitting to consume Hadia (a local liquor). At that time sound of a firing was heard. The room where they all were sitting the sound came from the same room and when she rushed to the place, she saw that the deceased had suffered gunshot injury and blood was oozing from his chest. He told that the appellant had fired on him. She has stated that she had seen the appellant fleeing with pistol. She has identified the appellant who was present in Court. During her cross examination, this witness has stated that she is an illiterate. At the time of occurrence all the family members were present at home. At the time of occurrence, her brother Soma was preparing Hadia. At that time the appellant and the deceased were not intoxicated. It is incorrect that she was sleeping in an intoxicated state. Police had interrogated her on 2nd itself and thereafter police had not interrogated her. It is incorrect that she is hiding the truth in order to save her brother Sanju. P.W.4 Sanjay Malua has stated that the occurrence is of 2nd January, 2012. It was 6.30 p.m. evening. He was at his house at that time. At that time, Soma Soy and Sanju Malua informed him that the appellant has fired on the deceased. He stated that he rushed to the place and saw bullet in the chest and blood was oozing from chest but at that time he was alive. He stated that he took his brother (deceased) to Dr. Arun, who disclosed that deceased had died. Then he brought the dead body to his house. At the time of occurrence, deceased was sitting to consume Hadia and Soma was preparing Hadia and the appellant was also present there. He stated that he took his brother (deceased) to Dr. Arun, who disclosed that deceased had died. Then he brought the dead body to his house. At the time of occurrence, deceased was sitting to consume Hadia and Soma was preparing Hadia and the appellant was also present there. When this witness reached at the place of occurrence, appellant had already fled. Police had come and had recorded his statement, which was read over to him and finding the same to be correct this witness had put his signature. He identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which is Exhibit 2/1. He identified the appellant, who was present in Court. In cross examination, he has stated that the deceased was invited by Sanju for consuming hadia. At the time of inviting, the deceased and Sanju were not in intoxicated state. When Sanju had come to inform him, there were no blood on his clothes. When he reached to his brother and saw him injured, at that time Soma, Sanju, Sanju’s parents and his sister were present. On being told by Soma and Sanju, treating the same to be correct, he is giving his evidence. He has stated in his cross examination that police had come at 11 O’ clock at night. At the time when police had recorded his statement, his brother Yogendra Malua was present only. He stated that he had told to the police that he had taken the deceased to Dr. Arun at Chaibasa. He stated that his home is at a distance of 15-20 steps from the house of Sanju. He stated that Soma had told that he was preparing hadia. Who had killed his brother or why he was killed is not personally known to him. It is incorrect that the deceased was killed by Soma Soy and Sanju Malua. He had instituted the case on the basis of whatever was said by Soma Soy and Sanju Malua. He stated that he knows the appellant from before. He stated that it is incorrect that he is giving false evidence. P.W.5 Soma Soy has stated that the occurrence is of 2nd January 2012. It was 7 O’ clock in the evening. On that day, he along with Sanju Malua, and Laila Malua (deceased) were singing and dancing in the village itself. He stated that it is incorrect that he is giving false evidence. P.W.5 Soma Soy has stated that the occurrence is of 2nd January 2012. It was 7 O’ clock in the evening. On that day, he along with Sanju Malua, and Laila Malua (deceased) were singing and dancing in the village itself. After singing and dancing Sanju told him to prepare hadia in his home, whereafter he along with Sanju Malua and the deceased went to the house of Sanju. The appellant had also come there. He started preparing hadia and Sanju started preparing snacks (chakhna) in another room. At that time the appellant fired from pistol which hit on right side of the chest of the deceased and he fell there and the appellant fled from there. He stated that thereafter he went to Sanjay Malua and informed him about the occurrence, who immediately came to the deceased. Police had come to the village and had recorded the statement of Sanjay Malua about the occurrence and on the said statement this witness had also put his signature. He identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked Exhibit 2/2. He also identified his signature on the carbon copy of the seizure list with respect of blood smeared soil, which is marked Exhibit 4. He stated that his statement was recorded before the Magistrate and he had also put his signature on the said statement. He identified his signature on the statement which is Exhibit 5. He identified the appellant who was present in Court. In cross examination, he has stated that there was no case against him. Either before dancing or after dancing, neither he, nor Sanju nor the appellant had consumed hadia. They had not consumed any type of intoxicating material. He did not pay heed as to whether there was blood on Sanju’s clothes or not. Normally ladies prepare hadia and the guests are served hadia by ladies only. He has further stated in cross examination that Sanjay had taken the deceased to his home in injured state and had taken him to the doctor at Chaibasa. This witness has stated that he had not gone to the doctor at Chaibasa. He stated that at the time when statement of Sanjay was recorded, this witness was not there. Later on he had put his signature on the statement in the house of the deceased. This witness has stated that he had not gone to the doctor at Chaibasa. He stated that at the time when statement of Sanjay was recorded, this witness was not there. Later on he had put his signature on the statement in the house of the deceased. He had put his signature on the seizure list also in the house of the deceased. It is incorrect that he and Sanju jointly had killed the deceased and falsely implicated the appellant. He further stated in cross examination that there are two rooms in Sanju’s house. Who all were present in the second room is not known to him. He was preparing hadia inside the house. The place where he was preparing hadia, no other person was there. When he heard the sound of firing he saw that the appellant is fleeing. He had not seen as to how the deceased was shot. After bullet firing when the deceased fell, at that time only this witness and Sanju were there and later on Sanjay and his brother came. He stated that he knows the appellant from before. P.W.6 is Dr. Dilip Kumar Sinha. He had conducted the postmortem examination of deceased Birendra Malua. He found the following ante mortem findings:- External I. Wound of entrance present left side of chest, above and residual to left nipple. “1/2” in diameter over in sharp with inverted margin-surrounding skin in black in colour and tottoted with gun powder particle. Blood and blood clot present. II. No wound of exit present On dissection:- Thorax cavity full of blood and blood clots. Multiple ribs fracture on left including sternum. Longs left side tear, right side intact. Heart ruptured. Bullet recovered on the left side on chest wall posteriosly. Abdomen Lungs and spleen-pale Stomach-Undigested rice meal. Recovered bullet handed over to the constable. Time since death 0-6 to 48 hours. Cause of death – Fire arm gun shot injury. P.W.7 is Vishnudeo Mishra, who was the Investigating Officer. He has given detail description about investigation and exhibits. He has identified the handwriting and signature of Officer-in-Charge, Shyam Bihari Manjhi, which is marked Ext. 8. He took re-statement of Sanjay Malua and had recorded the statements of Yogendra Malua and Turam Sundi. He had inspected the place of occurrence and has also given description of the same including boundary thereof. He has identified the handwriting and signature of Officer-in-Charge, Shyam Bihari Manjhi, which is marked Ext. 8. He took re-statement of Sanjay Malua and had recorded the statements of Yogendra Malua and Turam Sundi. He had inspected the place of occurrence and has also given description of the same including boundary thereof. He seized blood soaked earth and prepared its seizure list which is Ext. 2/3. He prepared inquest report of the dead body of the deceased, which is marked Ext.3/2. He sent the body for postmortem. He recorded the statements of Sanju Malua, Soma Soy, Sarswati Malua and Rajesh Sundi. He recorded the confessional statement of the appellant. He arrested the appellant and prepared arrest memo. On the disclosure made by the appellant, he recovered a country made pistol from the khalihan of Pradhan Sundi and prepared its seizure list. He submitted chargesheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. In his cross examination, he has stated that he did not sent the seized blood soaked soil to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. He stated that he did not produce the seized pistol and cartridges before the Court. He stated that during investigation, he did not record the statement of Nasir Malua. He stated that the confessional statement of the appellant did not bear his signature. He stated that he did not record the statements of Sahu Sundi and Mahesh Malua. He denied that the suggestion that appellant had not given his confessional statement before him and nothing was recovered at his instance. He stated that during investigation, he did not send the seized pistol and cartridges for inquiry to the Sergeant Major. He denied to have conducted any investigation as to whether murder of the deceased was committed by Sanju Malua and Soma Soy. He denied the suggestion that his investigation was faulty and he submitted the chargesheet against the appellant to save Sanju Malua and Soma Soy. 8. Upon conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. 9. After hearing the arguments of the parties, upon conclusion of the trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the impugned Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence, as stated in paragraph 1 of this judgment. 10. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. 9. After hearing the arguments of the parties, upon conclusion of the trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the impugned Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence, as stated in paragraph 1 of this judgment. 10. Challenging the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 11. From the evidence discussed hereinbefore, we find that there are eye witnesses to the said occurrence. The occurrence took place in the house of P.W.1 Sanju Malua. P.W.1 clearly stated that he was in one room and appellant and the deceased were in another room. Same statement was given by P.W.3 Sarswati Malua. P.W.3 stated that Sanju Malua (P.W.1) was preparing food and she was preparing tea. Both the appellant and the deceased were in another room. Further, P.W.5 also stated that Sanju invited him and others to his house. Deceased, appellant and others also went there. He also stated that Sanju Malua (P.W.1) was in another room. Thus, from the aforesaid statement, it has been proved that the appellant and the deceased were in one room and other witnesses, i.e., P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were also present in the adjacent room. All these witnesses, thereafter, in same tone, stated that they heard the sound of firing in the adjacent room and when they went there, they saw deceased was shot at and this appellant was fleeing with a firearm in his hand. P.W.3 clearly stated that he had seen this appellant going out with firearm and deceased was shot at his chest. P.W.5 also stated that this appellant with the help of firearm shot at the deceased on his chest and thereafter he fled. P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4, stated that when they rushed to the adjacent room where the incident had occurred, the deceased, who was injured at that time, disclosed that it was this appellant, who had shot at him. The fact that the appellant had shot the deceased is corroborated by the statement of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5. There is nothing in their evidence to disbelieve their statement. 12. The fact that the appellant had shot the deceased is corroborated by the statement of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5. There is nothing in their evidence to disbelieve their statement. 12. Now, if their statement is compared with the medical evidence, and with the statement of P.W.6, who is the doctor who had conducted the postmortem, it is evident that the doctor had clearly stated that he found the wound of entry on the left side of his chest but he did not found any exit wound. A bullet was recovered on the left side of the chest and cause of death is firearm gun shot injury. This supports the statement of witnesses. Though there is one small contradiction where P.W.5 has stated that the injury was on the right side of the chest, but the doctor has stated that it was on left side of the chest. This, according to us, is not major contradiction, which can affect the prosecution case. The fact remains that the deceased was shot at chest. 13. The argument of the counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive, has got no legs to stand. When there are eye witnesses of murder and there are direct evidence where witnesses have narrated the occurrence, there is no necessity to prove motive. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan versus State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1473 while referring to earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, at paragraphs 65, 66 and 67 thereof has held as under: 65. The next contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the motive attributed by the prosecution is a very weak motive. It is submitted that the motive attributed is on account of political enmity due to elections which were held two and half years prior to the date of incident. The motive is specifically brought on record in the evidence of Lokendra (PW-1) and Irshad Khan (PW7). Harpal Singh (PW-10) also deposed about the enmity between the families of Ishwar and Ram Kishan. In any case, the present case is a case of direct evidence. It is a settled law that though motive could be an important aspect in a case based on circumstantial evidence, in the case of direct evidence, the motive would not be that relevant. In any case, the present case is a case of direct evidence. It is a settled law that though motive could be an important aspect in a case based on circumstantial evidence, in the case of direct evidence, the motive would not be that relevant. In this respect we may gainfully refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bogam Chandraiah, which reads thus: “11. …Another failing in the judgment is that the High Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove adequate motive for the commission of the offence without bearing in mind the well settled rule that when there is direct evidence of an acceptable nature regarding the commission of an offence the question of motive cannot loom large in the mind of the court. …” 66. This Court, in the case of Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, has observed thus: “15. So far as the issue of motive is concerned, it is a settled legal proposition that motive has great significance in a case involving circumstantial evidence, but where direct evidence is available, which is worth relying upon, motive loses its significance…” 67. Again in the case of Subodh Nath v. State of Tripura, this Court has observed thus: “16. … The learned counsel for the appellants is right that the prosecution has not been able to establish the motive of Appellant 1 to kill the deceased but as there is direct evidence of the accused having committed the offence, motive becomes irrelevant. Motive becomes relevant as an additional circumstance in a case where the prosecution seeks to prove the guilt by circumstantial evidence only.” 14. The Investigating Officer was examined in this case and he stated that on confession of this appellant, murder weapon was recovered. Not sending the murder weapon for forensic examination is not fatal as it is consistent statement of the eye witnesses that they had seen the appellant committing the murder and fleeing from the place of occurrence. 15. It is also not the prosecution case that the deceased died instantly. He was taken to the hospital. Not sending the murder weapon for forensic examination is not fatal as it is consistent statement of the eye witnesses that they had seen the appellant committing the murder and fleeing from the place of occurrence. 15. It is also not the prosecution case that the deceased died instantly. He was taken to the hospital. Both these appellant and the deceased were in one room and in the very next room, the witnesses were present, who reached the adjacent room immediately after hearing the gun shot, where the deceased disclosed that this appellant had fired on him and the appellant was also seen fleeing from the place of occurrence with firearm in his hand. 16. All these aforesaid evidence clearly and without any doubt leads to the only conclusion towards the guilt of the appellant. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubts. The conviction of the appellant is thus sustained. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs no interference. We find no merit in this appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. 17. Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.