Mridula Mishra, J.

1. The appellant has filed this criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.6.2001/22.6.2001 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 2000 whereby and whereunder he has been convicted under sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution case in brief as given out in the fardbeyan of Rajo Singh alias Rajendra Singh before the Officer-in-Charge, Begusarai police station on 12.8.1999 at about 6a.m. in the morning is that in the night of 11.8.1999 he along with his son Vinod Kumar Singh was sleeping in the verandah of his newly constructed house after taking meal. At about 2 O clock he woke up hearing the sound of foot steps and in the electric light saw Arbind Singh and Bhola Singh both armed with pistol coming towards him. Bhola Singh put his pistol on his chest and asked Arbind Singh to kill his son Vinod Kumar Singh. On such instigation Arbind Singh opened fire which hit Vinod Kumar Singh and he died at the spot. On hearing the sound of firing and alarm raised by him Ram Chandra Singh, who was sleeping in that room and other family members came there and witnessed the occurrence. The accused persons left the place and fled towards eastern direction, when the family members came at the place of occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence is the previous enmity and series of cases going on in between the parties. Further it is alleged that in the year 1983 the accused persons have made attempt on his life and in this respect Chanpur P.S. Case No. 14 of 1983 was instituted. Besides this Nagar Thana P.S. Case No. 15 of 1989 and P.S. Case No. 116 of 1990 were also instituted against the accused persons. Two three days prior to the occurrence the accused persons had enhanced threat to him that they will kill him.

3. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan Begusarai P.S. Case No. 198 of 1999 was instituted against Bhola Singh and Arbind Singh u/s. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ) and 27 Arms Act. The case was investigated by the police and charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Cognizance was taken against both the accused and they were committed to the Court of Sessions for facing trial on the basis of the material available on the record. The Sessions Court framed charge against both the accused persons u/s. 302/34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sec. 27(3) of the Arms Act and on conclusion of the trial both the accused were convicted and sentenced as stated above.

4. Against the judgment of conviction both Arbind Singh and Bhola Singh had preferred the present appeal but appellant No. 2 Bhola Singh died during the pendency of the appeal as such the Arbind Singh is the sole appellant whose case is to be considered in the present appeal.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether six witnesses. Out of them PW 2 Yadunandan Rai is the formal witness. He has proved the signature of SI Ram Sakal Mishra on the fardbeyan (Ext. 2). PW 4 Dr. Azad Hind Prasad has held autopsy on the dead body of Vinod Kumar Singh and the post-mortem report has been marked Ext. 4. PW 6 Kamod Prasad is the IO who has proved the fardbeyan of Rajendra Singh alias Rajo Singh recorded by SI Ram Sakal Mishra (Ext. 5) and inquest report Ext. 6. PW 5 Rejendra Singh alias Rajo Singh is the informant of the case. He has proved the signature on fardbeyan Ext. 1/A and signature of his advocate Kameshwar Prasad on protest petition (Ext. 1/F). He has also proved his own signature on protest petition Ext. 1/G. PW 1 Ramchandra Singh is the brother-in-law of the informant and has claimed to be an eye-witness. PW 3 Suman Kumari is the daughter-in-law of the informant. She is a practicing advocate and has been examined as an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence.

6. The defence of accused-appellant is of false implication on account of enmity with the