ORDER
Being Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 1.5.1996 passed by the High Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 27/85 and Criminal. Revision No. 762/ 85, accused has filed these appeals. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has set aside the order dated 11.6.1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge III, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 138/1984 acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The High Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In the present case it is the prosecution version that the incident took place at about 6.00 a.m. on 11.8.1983 because of a quarrel between the deceased Ashok Kumar Singh and accused Umesh Prasad Singh. Admittedly, both were residing in the same village in the same locality having adjacent houses. At about 6.00 a.m. deceased had gone to take out water from the well in village Bakama, District Patna. At that time the appellant also had gone there and wanted to take water first. Therefore, quarrel ensued between them. Both were separated by Chandrika Prasad Singh (PW 4), Anirudh Singh (PW 3) and other persons. Thereafter the deceased went back to his house. Accused also returned to his house. Soon thereafter accused took out his licensed gun and shot at Ashok Kumar Singh hitting him on the chest as a result of which Ashok Kumar Singh fell down on the ground. Thereafter, accused ran away, deceased was lifted on a cot and taken to Barh Hospital via village Kondi. Deceased was unconscious all throughout and expired in the hospital. It is the prosecution version that Chandrika Prasad Singh (PW 4) father of the deceased, lodged the Fardbeyan (Ext. 2) on 11.8.1983 at 10.00 a.m. at the Barh Hospital which was recorded by Ashok Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police of Barh Police Station (PW 5). Thereafter, the inquest Panchnama was drawn and Fardbeyan was sent to the Bhadaur Police Station for institution of the case. After completing the investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted and tried. 3. At the time of hearing of these appeals, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court committed patent error in reversing the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He also submitted that Sessions Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that the FIR was ante-timed, there was non-examination of the Pujari of the temple from where the blood was recovered and there is total negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer in not sending the gun and the empty cartridges for examination by the ballistic expert. 4. The High Court after considering the entire evidence arrived at the conclusion that there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses PW 1 Prem Kumar, PW 2 Lakshman Prasad Singh, PW 3 Anirudh Singh and PW 4 Chandrika Prasad Singh who have seen the quarrel between the accused and the deceased. They have also seen the accused firing at the deceased and running away from the spot. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the said evidence and we do not think that the High Court has committed any error in appreciating the said evidence. THE evidence of the said eye-witnesses is also corroborated by the medical evidence. PW 6 Dr. Bhupendra Prasad Singh has carried out the post-mortem examination and has found "lacerated penetrating wound on upper part of right side chest in front of 1" in diameter viscera deep and surrounded by separate openings caused by multiple pellets placed in an area of 2½" diameter". Further the High Court has also considered the evidence of Investigating Officer, Ashok Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police (PW 5) who has recorded the Fardbeyan of Chandrika Prasad Singh at Barh Hospital at 10.00 a.m. on 11.8.1983. Considering the evidence it would be difficult to arrive at the conclusion that FIR was ante-timed or that there was any delay in recording the FIR. THE Fardbeyan given by PW 4 was sent to the police station for drawing up the first information report at Bhadaur Police Station. With regard to the non-examination of the Pujari of the temple where the blood was found, it is to be stated that the distance between the said place and the house. of the accused is not much. It is the say of the prosecution witnesses that after receiving the injury the deceased went ahead by few steps and fell down. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that considering the medical evidence it was not possible for the deceased to go ahead even by few steps. However, considering the distance between the house of the deceased and the temple, it is not possible to discard the evidence of the eye witnesses. Further the Investigating Officer (PW 7) had also found blood at the house of the deceased and thereafter a trail upto Thakurwari. It is true that there is nothing on record why Investigating Officer has not sent the gun or empty cartridges for examination by ballistic expert. But that would not in any way affect the evidence of eye-witnesses who were present at the scene of offence and subsequently who have seen the accused firing at the deceased. 5. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in these appeals and are, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.