JUDGMENT : V. Ramaswami, J. 1. These appeals are brought from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated January 19, 1967 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 1197, 1198 t and 1229 of 1966. By this judgment the High Court affirmed the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Lucknow-Kanpur dated May 26, 1966 in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1966 sentencing the appellants to death under Section 302, Indian Penal Code read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code and to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on September 1, 1965 at about 6 p.m. Nanney Singh and Dularey were sitting on a cot on the foot-path of the road under a tree near the flour mill owned by Nanney Singh in the Labour Colony, Nawabganj, in the city of Kanpur and Rakesh arrived and sat on the cot and began to talk to Nanney Singh. Shortly afterwards the present appellants arrived armed with pistols and knives. Ravindra alias Lalla, Mewa Lal and Surendra Singh were carrying pistols while Su-resh Chandra was armed with a knife. Rakesh also had a knife with him. On arrival the appellants shouted that Nanney Singh should be killed. Nanney Singh tried to run away but Rakesh caught hold of him and Suresh Chandra assaulted him with a knife and Mewa Lal fired a shot from his pistol in the air. Rakesh also struck Nanney Singh with his knife. Dularey tried to save Nanney Singh but Ravindra alias Lalla fired a shot at Dularey which hit him on the right eye. Dularey fell down and died on the spot. Nanney Singh also fell down unconscious. Mewa Lal fired a shot at Nanney Singh. Surendra Singh fired a shot in the air and all the appellants left the spot. Dadu Singh, P. W. 5 lodged the First Information Report at 6.45 p.m. on the same date. The Sub-Inspector, P.W. 10 immediately left for the spot and held an inquest on the dead bodies of Dularey and Nanney Singh. The inquest reports are Exs. Ka-9 and Ka-10. The Sub-Inspector thereafter took other steps in connection with the investigation of the crime. The postmortem examination of the dead bodies of Dularey and Nanney Singh was conducted by Dr. A. S. Gupta, P.W. 2. The inquest reports are Exs. Ka-9 and Ka-10. The Sub-Inspector thereafter took other steps in connection with the investigation of the crime. The postmortem examination of the dead bodies of Dularey and Nanney Singh was conducted by Dr. A. S. Gupta, P.W. 2. As many as 28 incised or punctured wounds were found on the dead body of Nanney Singh. The doctor also found three- gun-shot wounds of entrance, each x i". The first gun-shot wound was on the right side and front of the chest. 2k" medial to the right nipple, the second 3" below the above injury and the third on the right side and upper part of the abdomen. The first two injuries had entered the chest cavity and the third had entered the abdomen. On the dead-body of Dularey two incised wounds and a gun shot wound of entrance on the right eye were found. The whole of the right eye ball had been lacerated and as a result of the grazing of the gun shots two abrasions were also found near the B right eye. The death of Dularey was the result of this gun-shot injury. The appellants pleaded not guilty and alleged that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. Both the trial court and the High Court, however, accepted the prosecution case as true and held that the charges under Sections 148 and 302, Indian Penal Code were established against all the appellants. The B High Court also accepted the reference made by the Sessions Judge with regard to the sentence of death inflicted upon I the three appellants. 3. In Criminal Appeals 199 and 200 1 of 1967 Mr. K.K. Luthra contended that the two inquest reports contain suspicious alterations and the time of the First Information Report has been wrongly noted in the Inquest Reports. It was suggested that the First Information Report was recorded by the Sub- Inspector after the inquest was made but the time of recording the First Information Report has been falsely noted as 6.45 p.m. The matter has been considered by the High Court which took the view that the alterations were made bona fide and by mistake the time of the report was noted as 6.30 p.m. in the in quest report even though the report was recorded at the police station at 6.45 p.m. It was then contended by Mr. Luthra that the names of the eye-witnesses are not specified in the inquest report. But there is nothing in the language of Section 174, Criminal Procedure Code to suggest that there is any duty cast upon the Police Officer to mention the names of the alleged eye witnesses in the Inquest Report. Mr. Luthra then submitted that there was a discrepancy between the testimony of the eye witnesses and Dr. A. S. Gupta as to the gun injuries found on the dead body of Nanney Singh. Dr. Gupta said that the three gun-shot wounds were not caused by the firing of one gun-shot but resulted from the firing of different shots. The question has been examined by the High Court which took the view that the doctor was under the wrong impression that the shots fired from the pistol were bullets and not cartridges and that the three gun-shot wounds found on the body of Nanney Singh made it clear that the assailants had used a country-made pistol in which ordinary 12 bore cartridges are used. The High Court observed that all the gun-shot injuries could be the result of the firing of one 12 bore cartridge. The High Court accordingly relied upon the evidence of the eye witnesses that only one shot was fired at Nanney Singh. On behalf of the prosecution four eye witnesses, Durga Prasad P.W. 1, Shanker P.W. 3, Dadu Singh P.W. 5 and Beni Singh P.W. 8 were examined. After examining their evidence in detail the High Court expressed the view that Durga Prasad and Dadu Singh were truthful witnesses and had made frank and straight-forward statements. As regards Beni Singh P.W. 8 and Shanker P.W. 3, the High Court held that they were guilty of some concealment and that their testimony should &be accepted with caution. But the High Court felt no doubt that these two persons were employed at the flour mills of Nanney Singh and could be eye witnesses to the murder. 4. It was contended on behalf of Ravindra alias Lalla that he was implicated on account of enmity. It was alleged that he had quarrelled with Dadu Singh about one month before the present occurrence. It was also alleged that Ravindra's brother, Om Nath had fought the election against Nathu Ram Gupta and Dadu Singh belonged to the group of Nathu Ram Gupta. It was alleged that he had quarrelled with Dadu Singh about one month before the present occurrence. It was also alleged that Ravindra's brother, Om Nath had fought the election against Nathu Ram Gupta and Dadu Singh belonged to the group of Nathu Ram Gupta. The plea of enmity was also put forward on behalf of Suresh Chandra and it was said that he and Dadu Singh worked in the same department of Elgin Mills and that Dadu Singh had beaten Ganesh in charge and Swami Shanker clerk and that he had asked Dadu Singh not to beat the clerks and Dadu Singh suspected that a report was made against him at the instance of Suresh Chandra. The High Court has rejected the plea of enmity on the ground that the incident took place in 1962 and there was no evidence adduced by Suresh Chandra in support of the plea. As regards Ravindra also the High Court has remarked that there is nothing to prove the alleged enmity between Ravindra and Dadu Singh and Nathu Ram Gupta. 5. In Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1967 Mr. Nuruddin Ahmad submitted in the first place that Mewa Lal took a minor part in the attack on Nanney Singh and that he fired the gun-shot after Nanney Singh had sustained 27 injuries with a knife. It was suggested by Mr. Nuruddin that Mewa Lal fired a shot after Nanney Singh had died. There is no substance in this argument because the evidence of Dr. A.S. Gupta is that the gun-shot injuries were also ante-mortem. It was next contended by Mr. Nuruddin that there was no motive on the part of Mewa Lal to commit the murder of Nanney Singh. It appears from the evidence that Mewa Lal was looking after the flour mill of Om Nath brother of Ravindra alias Lalla and there was business rivalry between Mewa Lal and Ravindra on the one hand and Nanney Singh on the other. The High Court has also referred to the statement of Dadu Singh that proceedings under Sections 107(117 Cr.P.C. were taken with Mewa Lal and Nanney Singh in opposite groups and that the relations between Mewa Lal and Nanney Singh were lightly strained. The High Court has also referred to the statement of Dadu Singh that proceedings under Sections 107(117 Cr.P.C. were taken with Mewa Lal and Nanney Singh in opposite groups and that the relations between Mewa Lal and Nanney Singh were lightly strained. It is true that the evidence of motive is not strong but the High Court has accepted the testimony of two eye-witnesses Durga Prasad and Dadu Singh as completely true and as establishing the charge of murder against Mewa Lal. It is therefore not possible to accept the argument of Mr. Nuruddin that the absence of motive has any relevance in the present case. Lastly it was urged by Mr. Nuruddin that there was enmity between Mewa Lal and the police officers for malicious prosecution. It was alleged that Mewa Lal had been acquitted in many police cases. But the High Court has said that this circumstance alone cannot necessarily indicate that the present case started by the police against Mewa Lal is false. In any event, there is nothing to show that any of the eye-witnesses in the case are under the influence of the police. 6. Having examined the arguments addressed on behalf of all the three appellants, we are of opinion that there is no exceptional or special reason why the concurrent finding of fact reached by the lower courts should be allowed to be challenged. It is well-established that this court is not a second court of Criminal Appeal and ordinarily it will not allow facts to be re-opened or conclusions of fact to be challenged specially when the two courts below agree in their conclusions in regard to facts and those conclusions relate to the credibility of the witnesses who have been believed by the trial court which had advantage of seeing them and hearing their evidence. 7. For these reasons we hold that there is no case made out for interference with the judgment of the High Court and these appeals must accordingly be dismissed. Appeals accordingly dismissed.