JUDGMENT :

Aniruddha Bose, J.

It is submitted by the learned counsel representing both the parties that appellant No. 2 has expired. The appeal against appellant No.2, thus, has abated.

2. Both the appellants were tried and convicted for committing murder of one Ashok Rewani (the deceased victim) on 22nd January, 1993. The Trial Court convicted the surviving appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the Code) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. We shall henceforth refer to him as the appellant only in this order. Conviction of the deceased appellant was under Section 302/109 of the Code and he was also ordered to undergo the same sentence. The High Court of Jharkhand confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court as also the order of sentence. The place of occurrence of the offence was Mahuwar Chawk, within Harla police station in the district of Bokaro, Jharkhand. Time of occurrence was about 10 P.M. The case, out of which this appeal arises, was initiated on the basis of a “Fardbeyan” of one Nun Chand Rewani, who had deposed in the trial as P.W. 3. The “Fardbeyan” was recorded at Bokaro General Hospital where the deceased victim was taken to by his relatives, who at the time of occurrence were with him. Such recording was done by a Sub-Inspector of the said Police Station, Inderdeo Singh. The latter was the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and was examined in the trial as P.W 4.

3. The prosecution case, accepted by the Trial Court as also by the High Court, was that the deceased victim on the night of occurrence went by a two-wheeler to the said chawk and was having tea at that time along with P.W. 3, one Nun Chand Rewani and Rupesh Kumar Rewani (P.W.1), nephew of the deceased victim. The former was also a relative of the deceased victim. At the same time, as it transpires from evidence, the second appellant (since deceased) had reached the spot and started abusing the deceased victim. On protest by the latter, the surviving appellant was called and was exhorted to kill the deceased victim. The surviving appellant then took out a pistol and shot at deceased victim. Injury was caused to his chest and he fell down. Thereafter, the present appellant fired another shot while escaping from the spot.

4. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against both the accused persons under sections 302/34 of the Code. Charge was framed against the appellants for committing offence under the aforesaid sections and in the case of deceased appellant, charge under section 109 of the Code was added. Five witnesses were examined by the prosecution, among whom P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were witnesses of fact. The I.O. and the autopsy surgeon, Dr. Satya Narain Lal (P.W. 5) were also examined. The Trial Court found both of them guilty. Stand of both the accused persons in response to their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that of general denial.

5. The prosecution version was that the deceased was killed in close range firing by appellant at the instigation of the deceased appellant, who was his father. Conviction of the appellant was primarily based on eyewitness account of the incident or deposition of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 at the trial. The cause of death, being hemorrhage and shock caused by bullet injury from firearm, has been established by the P.W. 5. His deposition largely corroborates the post-mortem report (Ext.4). Apart from injuries, both external and internal in the chest region of the deceased victim, the post-mortem report revealed that his second rib was fractured. Digested food was present in his stomach. There was, however, no exit wound.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has sought to assail the judgment under appeal mainly on argument of inconclusive medical evidence to connect killing of the deceased victim with bullet injury. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the nature of injury was such that it could not have come from a clo