We have given a careful consideration to the arguments of the respective counsel and also examined the statements of the witnesses and other documentary evidence. The first argument regarding motive is concerned, we are of the opinion that it is an admitted fact that there was long standing enmity between two families. Litigation was continuing and there is no reason why they will be falsely implicated eliminating actual assailants. On the other hand, the accused have strong motive to commit the offence, conduct of the appellant also establishes their guilt. The accused Kali Prasad absconded and evaded his arrest. The intention of the accused to commit the offence is also clear from the circumstances of the case. The accused had come to Varanasi fully armed with fire arms. They had prior knowledge where the deceased worked and where he lived and the route, which he used to take to reach home. They were in wait and completed their well hatched out plan by causing injury on the vital part and were successful in their attempt and, therefore, any argument regarding motive to commit the offence is of no consequence. On the other hand, the presence of first informant at the time and place of occurrence also does not appear to be doubtful. The first information report is prompt one. PW-1 was also present at the time of inquest and it is not a case that he has been introduced subsequently as a witness. His presence has also been shown in the site plan. Place of incident is also close by where PW-1 and deceased resided. No doubt, he has also admitted that he was making preparation at Allahabad for various competitions but he was in Varanasi since last one week from the date of occurrence and since his brother was considerably delayed in his office, therefore, the concern of his brother specially in the circumstances that there were enemies and apprehension of danger must have been in his mind. No suggestion to the contrary was given to the witnesses, neither anything was elucidated in his statement or cross examination to doubt his presence. Blood stained earth as well as empty cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence as stated in the F.I.R. as well as given out in his statement and also shown in the site plan. Therefore, the prosecution story stands fully corroborated and merely some stray contradictions are not sufficient to discard his testimony. Regarding the argument that he is an interested witness, we are of the view that at the time of occurrence he is the only natural witness and prosecution has not made any attempt to add an independent witness only to prove the prosecution case. The presence of Nepal Singh, PW-3 has been shown in the site plan and he has also admitted that he is residing in the near vicinity. Nepal Singh is an independent witness who has supported the evidence of PW-1 and, therefore, the argument that conviction has been based on a single testimony of an interested witness is not acceptable. Submit