JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-These appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 5th September, 2003 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 420 and 489 of 1999. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order affirmed the judgment and order of the 6th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chapra dated 13.9.1999 in Sessions Trial No. 136/98 whereby he had sentenced appellant, Nirmal Singh to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Appellant, Ranjan Singh was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Apart from the appellants, two others were put up for trial before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chapra, but they have been acquitted by the trial court and no appeal was preferred against their acquittal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14th March, 1997 at about 8.00 p.m. in village Kudar Bagha, 4 persons including the appellants herein came near the house of the deceased. When the deceased emerged from his Angan and came to the dalan, appellant Ranjan Singh exhorted his companion, appellant Nirmal Singh to shoot the deceased, as a result of which appellant Nirmal Singh fired at the deceased and shot him in the abdomen. The case of the prosecution is that apart from the appellants, the other two were also armed, one with a country made pistol and the other with a lathi. Further case of the prosecution is that after the deceased was injured, the members of the family, who are the witnesses, chased them and while retreating all the three accused who were armed with country made pistols, fired at them but no one was injured. The assailants made good their escape. According to the prosecution, the motive for the occurrence was that 3 days before the incident deceased was returning to his house in village Kudar Bagha and while he was passing in front of the house of the appellant Nirmal Singh, the bundle carried by him on his head touched the roof of the house of appellant Nirmal Singh, which caused a slight damage to the tiles of his roof. This gave rise to an altercation and abuses were exchanged between the parties. It was on account of this incident that appellant Nirmal Singh bore a grudge against the deceased and committed the offence as alleged.

3. The case of the prosecution is that after the incident PW-11 Nag Narain Singh, uncle of the deceased went on a bicyle to police station Garkha, at a distance of 7 kms. from the village/place of occurrence. Unfortunately, the station house officer or any other officer was not present in the police station and he told the constable and the chowkidar present there that he had come to lodge a report regarding the murder of his nephew. From his deposition, it appears that he narrated the incident to them but he did not name the accused. He was, however, told by the constable that since the sub-inspector was not present in the police station, no report could be recorded and that the sub-inspector will be informed when he returned to the police station and that he will thereafter take further steps in the matter. On being assured that the sub-inspector of police will come to the village and take further steps, PW-11 returned to his village and waited for the police party to arrive.

According to Gopal Mishra, PW-10, the investigating officer when he came to the police station at about 1.00 a.m. he was informed by a constable that a murder had taken place in village Kudar Bagha and, therefore, after recording the station diary entry, he proceeded to village Kudar Bagha. There is some contradiction in his testimony as to whether he had proceeded to village Kudar Bagha on the basis of rumours, or whether the constable in the police station had informed him about the occurrence. The station diary entry does not support the