S.N.Jha, J.

1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code(in short "Penal Code") and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. On the basis of a fardbeyan (Ext. 3) made by the deceased in the Colgong State Dispensary on 13-4- 1984 at 11-30 p.m. recorded by P.W. S. a formal first information report (Ext. 4) was drawn up. The prosecution case according to the said fardbeyan (Ext. 3), in short, is that on the date of occurrence i.e. 13-4-1984 at about 8-00 p.m. while the deceased Bohi Mandai was going to the field of his master Dip Narain Singh, (P.W. 2), from his house, and when he reached near Pee pal tree on Durga Bandh situated at village - Aurangabad within the police station of Colgong in the district of Bhagalpur the appellant Jairam Mandai came before him with a pistol in his hand and fired at him, which hit below his left chest as a result of which he fell down on the ground crying. On his hullah many people of the village came there and took him to the Colgong State Dispensary ill an injured condition. He was admitted in the emergency outdoor ward of the said hospital vide Bed Head Ticket (Ext. 6) and his injuries were examined by the doctor (P.W. 6) on the same night The police was informed and on that information the Officer Incharge of Colgong Police Station (P.W. 5) reached the Colgong State Dispensary in the same night and recorded the fardbeyan of the injured at about 11-30 p.m. As stated above, on the basis of the said fardbeyan a formal first information report was drawn up against the appellant at about 1-15 A.M. on 14-4-1984 and Colgong Police Station Case No. 39 (4) 84 was registered against the appellant under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Since the condition of the injured was deteriorating, he was referred to Bhagalpur Medical College Hospital, where he died of the said injury. The post-monem examination of the dead body was conducted by P.W. 1 at about 11-45 A.M. on 14-4-1984 and the offence was convened from Section 307 to Sec. 302 of the Penal Code. In the Fardbeyan (Ext. 3) it was also recorded that the deceased became the victim on account of Rangbazi.

3. The police after making investigation in the case submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sec. 302 of the Penal Code and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. wherein the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur took cognizance and the case was committed to the court of Session.

4. The appellant pleaded not guilty. According to him, he has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the case.

5. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge, has examined as many as six witnesses. Out of them P.W. 1 is the doctor who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 6 is the doctor who admitted the deceased in the Colgong State Dispensary when he was brought in the night at about 0-30 p.m. on 13-4-1984 in an injured condition by P.W. 3. P.W. 2 is said to be the master of the deceased and also the attesting witness on the fardbeyan. P.W. 4 is a tendered witness. P.W. 5 is the Investigating Officer, who made investigation into the case and submitted the charge-sheet.

6. The learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge on a careful consideration of the entire evidence in the light of the circumstances of the, case was of the opinion that the prosecution succeeded in proving the charge and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated above. Hence this appeal.

7. Mr. Uma Kant Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf the appellant submitted that the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have convicted the appellant on the basis of the meagre evidence available on the record and he has committed an error in convicting and