TYAGI, J.— Appellant Pratap Singh was prosecuted alongwith three other persons, viz. Adaram, Budhram and Juglal for offence under sec. 302, read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Surjaram but the learned Sessions Judge convicted only Pratap Singh for offence under sec. 302 (simpli-citer) and acquitted all the other three persons on the ground that sec. 34 could not be invoked in the circumstances of this case. It is against this judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar dated 28th August, 1971 that the present appeal has been filed by Pratp Singh. 2. Both Pratap Singh and Surjaram were the residents of Village Mehrana under Police Station, Bhadra. Surjaram was the Sarpanch of Mehrana village Pan-chayat. It is clear from the evidence that there were two parties in village Mehrana, one headed by Surjaram and the other by Pratap Singh. Criminal as well as civil litigation was going on between Pratap Singh and Surjaram and, therefore, they were obviously on inimical terms. On 5th of October, 1970, P.W. 2 Nanu Singh, Tehsil-dar of Bhadra Tehsil visited Mehrana to check up the electoral rolls which were to be used for the coming panchayat elections. It is said that hot words were exchanged in the presence of the Tehsildar between Pratap Singh and Surjaram on the question of inclusion and deletion of certain names from the voters list. According to the prosecution story, the names of the sons of Kurdaram (P.W. 1) and Maduram (P.W.4) were deleted. On 6th of October, 1970, Surjaram alongwith Kurdaram and Maduram went to Bhadra in his jeep with a view to get the names of the sons of Kurdaram and Maduram again included in the voters list. Of these three persons Surjaram went inside to see the Tehsildar while the other two, namely, Kurdaram and Maduram kept sitting on a Chabutra outside the tehsil building. After 15 or 20 minutes, Surjaram returned from the Tehsildars room and informed Kurdaram that the Tehsildar was busy in some other work and, therefore, they would come to the tehsil after some time. All the three then started for going to the market. After 15 or 20 minutes, Surjaram returned from the Tehsildars room and informed Kurdaram that the Tehsildar was busy in some other work and, therefore, they would come to the tehsil after some time. All the three then started for going to the market. According to the prosecution, when the complainant party reached the shop of Surjeet Singh Sethi (P.W. 3) they saw Pratap Singh armed with a .12 bore double barrel gun and Adaram having a Barchhi in his hand coming towards them from eastern side while Budhram, who was armed with a single barrel gun and Juglal who had a Barchhi in his hand, came from the northern side and surrounded Surjaram. Pratap Singh at the point of his gun threw a challenge to Surjaram to be ready to court death. Surja Ram in order to save himself immediately rushed into the shop of Surjeet Singh Sethi, but he was closely followed by Pratap Singh When Surjaram was trying to enter the inner compartment of the shop, Pratap Singh opened a gun fire towards Surjaram from a very close range with a result that the pellets hit the neck of Surjaram and he immediately dropped dead on a durri which was spread in that shop. It is said that Adaram at that time was guarding the eastern door of that shop while the other two associates of Pratap Singh, namely, Budhram and Juglal were standing on the northern door of that shop. Soon after Surjaram died, the assailants left the spot and went towards the north. This incident took place at 11.30 a.m. in the busy commercial locality of Bhadra town. When the assilants left the shop of Surjeet Singh Sethi, Kurdaram and Maduram entered the shop and having found that Surjaram was lying dead, Kurdaram directed Maduram to proceed to Mehrana to inform the relations of deceased Surjaram and he directly went to the Police Station, Bhadra which was hardly 1 Km away from the spot of occurrence to lodge the report of the incident. The first information report (Ex P. 1) was taken down by P.W 10 Anar Singh, Station House Officer and after taking down the report he immediately proceeded to the, spot for further investigation. Shri Anar Singh prepared a panchayatnama (Ex. P. 4) and Fard Surat-hal of the corpse (Ex. P. 5). The first information report (Ex P. 1) was taken down by P.W 10 Anar Singh, Station House Officer and after taking down the report he immediately proceeded to the, spot for further investigation. Shri Anar Singh prepared a panchayatnama (Ex. P. 4) and Fard Surat-hal of the corpse (Ex. P. 5). He also took from the place of incident various articles in his possession and prepared documents Exs. P. 6, P. 7, P. 8, and P. 9. It is said that before he could proceed further, P W. 9 Manohar Lal, CO. came to the spot and directed Anar Singh to proceed in search of the assailants and he took over charge from Anar Singh to proceed with the investigation. 3. Pratap Singh was arrested on 9th of October, 1970, his arrest memo being Ex, P. 19. On 13th of October, 1970, information was given by Pratap Singh when he was under detention regarding the whereabouts of his double barrel .12 bote gun which was recovered at his instance. The seizure memo of the gun is Ex P. 16 which shows that it had a fired cartridge in one of the barrels while the other barrel contained a live cartridge. The gun was sent for examination to the Forensic Expert who submitted his report Ex. P. 23 but as the gun is not in any manner, connected with the incident of firing towards Surjaram, therefore, we need not discuss the evidence of the information given by Pratap Singh under sec. 27 of the Evidence Act and the consequent recovery of the gun at the instance of the accused. 4. The police after investigation challaned only Pratap Singh and Adaram for offence under sec. 302, read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As regards Budh Ram and Juglal a report under sec. 169 Criminal Procedure Code was submitted, but on a complaint, the learned Magistrate started committal proceedings against all the four accused persons and after framing a charge under sec. 202, read with sec. 34, Indian Penal Code, he sent all of them to the court of Session to stand their trial. 5. 169 Criminal Procedure Code was submitted, but on a complaint, the learned Magistrate started committal proceedings against all the four accused persons and after framing a charge under sec. 202, read with sec. 34, Indian Penal Code, he sent all of them to the court of Session to stand their trial. 5. The trial Judge after having gone through the evidence of the prosecution was of opinion that no such facts and circumstances have been brought on the record which may go to involve Adaram, Budhram and Juglal in the commission of the mur-der of Surjaram and therefore he ordered the acquittal of these three accused persons. A definite finding was however recorded by the learned judge that gun-shot injury on the neck of Surjaram was inflicted by Pratap Singh which resulted in the instantane-ous death of Surjaram and therefore he cannot escape the consequence. It was in this background that Pratap Singh alone was convicted under sec. 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. 6. Mr. Mulla appearing on behalf of Pratap Singh did not challenge the fact that Surjaram died of gun-shot injury sustained by him on his neck at the shop of P.W. 3 Surjeet Singh Sethi at about 11.30 a.m. but his contention is that the news of this broad day-light gruesome murder committed in a busy locality of Bhadra town spread like a wild fire attracting the Police authorities to the scene of occurrence without even going into the formality of registering a case and it was after proceeding with the investigation that Kurdaram was summoned from his village Mehrana somewhere in the evening and then a formal first information report was registered. In the context of such a tainted investigation, Mr. Mulla argued that it will not be safe to place reliance on the testimony of the so-called two eye witnesses, namely, P.W. i Kurdaram and P.W. 4 Maduram who were highly interested because of their being active members of the party headed by Surjaram. In the context of such a tainted investigation, Mr. Mulla argued that it will not be safe to place reliance on the testimony of the so-called two eye witnesses, namely, P.W. i Kurdaram and P.W. 4 Maduram who were highly interested because of their being active members of the party headed by Surjaram. Learned counsel in this connection pointed out certain discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, and on that basis it was vehemently urged that the first information report, which was according to him, lodged somewhere in the evening after calling Kurdaram from Mehrana from their village must be declared to be the post investigation document which lends a particular bias to the entire investigation that vitiates even the trial of Pratap Singh. He also argued that non production of the independent witness belong to that busy locality of Bhadra where the murder was committed in a board day light gives a different complexion to the prosecution case and makes the case against the appellant very doubtful. 7. We propose to deal with the infirmities in the prosecution case as pointed out by Mr. Mulla as its proper place, but before we proceed to examine the material placed by the prosecution we may dispose of the general argument of the learned counsel for the appellant about the non production of the local eye witnesses who had witnessed the occurrence in the heart of the town. In this connection we may observe here that P.W. 3 Surjeet Singh Sethi who could not deny his presence in his shop at the time of the incident was examined in this case, but the way he acquitted himself in the witness box shows that he was not prepared to discharge his role as an eye "witness to oblige the prosecution by unfolding the truth regarding the identity of the assailant of Surjaram. It appears that the people had got scared due to the bold and dashing action of the assailants in the broad day light and therefore it was not an easy task for the investigating agency to pick out such persons from the market who could have taken courage to depose against such formidable criminals who could take the life of a man in such a busy locality and that too in broad day light, especially when the accused persons were not by then apprehended and were free to take revenge against any one who could act as eye witness of this incident. It is in this background that we find no substance in the argument of Mr. Mulla that the the absence of the witnesses from that locality who must be present at or near the scene of occurrence must create a doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. 8. The prosecution has produced only two eye witnesses in this case, namely, Kurdaram (P.W 1) and Maduram (P.W. 4). Surjeet Singh who was undoubtedly present at his shop at the time when the assailants entered the shop and fired the shot at Surjaram has, however, very cleverly avoided to mention anything about the real assailant and took a safe stand to avoid incurring the displeasure of the dare devils by deposing that he was sleeping when the incident took place he woke up from his slumber after hearing a report of the gun fire and he saw the back of one person going out of his shop and, therefore he could not identify him. He further stated that the person who went out of his shop at that time was not known to him from before. He also stated that the person who was standing at the eastern door with a Barchhi in his hand could not be identified by him as he could not see his face. This type of evidence shows that out of fear the witness who had actually witnessed the occurrence was not prepared to oblige the investigating agency by coming out with truth. This type of evidence shows that out of fear the witness who had actually witnessed the occurrence was not prepared to oblige the investigating agency by coming out with truth. We however cannot forget that the assailants were at large at the time when Sethi P.W. 3 was interrogated by the police and therefore this type of fear naturally affected the mind of Sethi and the neighbours who could have been dealt with in the same cruel manner in which the deceased was treated by the assailants. In these circumstances it is difficult to hold that the absence of the eye witness from the locality where the crime was committed lends a different colour to the prosecution story and makes it doubtful. 9. The first information report (Ex. P. 1) was lodged by P.W 1 Kurdaram within 20 minutes of the occurrence. The time of the report as entered therein is 11.50 a.m. The report contains the complete description about the manner in which the incident had taken place and also the names of the persons who were responsible for committing the murder of Surjaram. Soon after taking down this report Shri Anar Singh (P.W. 10), who was incharge of the Police Station, proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared various memos including Ex. P. 4 which is the inquest report. P.W. 3 Surjeet Singh Sethi, who had also signed this Ex. P. 4, has deposed that Kurdaram (P.W. 1) had also put his thumb impression on this document Ex. P. 4. A site plan was also drawn by P.W. 10 Anar Singh at the instance of Kurdaram and Ex. P. 5 to Ex. P. 9 were also prepared at the shop of P.W. 3 Surjeet Singh Sethi but on these documents the thumb impression of Kurdaram could not be obtained. An argument has been advanced by Mr. Mulla that the absence of thumb impression of Kurdaram on the document Exs. P 5 to P. 9 suggests that Kurdaram was not actually present at Surjeet Singh Sethis shop when the investigation actually started and, therefore, his suggestion is that after the police somehow came to know that a day light murder had been committed by some miscreants, the police came to the scene of occurrence and started investigation even without recording the first information report and the report (Ex. P. 1) according to him, was taken down in the evening after Kurdaram was called from Mehrana This argument of Mr. Mulla cannot stand the scrutiny because we find that document Ex. P. 4 bears the thumb impression of Kurdaram and, as Kurdaram states, after putting his thumb mark on the said document he went to the bazar as he had some work in the bazar. The perusal of documents Exs. P. 4 to P. 9 clearly shows that on each document the investigating officer had put the first information report No. 64 which shows that this report had by that time come into existence before these documents Exs. P. 4 to P. 9 were prepared by him. The presence of Kurdaram at the shop of Surjeet Singh Sethi is further established from the deposition of Surjeet Singh Sethi himself who cannot be said to be a partisan witness. 10. Mr. Mulla then urged that the document Ex P. 1 shows that the copy of the first information report was sent to the Magistrate concerned on that very day, but this document reached the court of the Magistrate on the next day at 1 30 P.M. The Court of the Magistrate is located at Bhadra and the distance between the Police Station and the court is hardly few paces. This delay, according to Mr. Mulla, suggests that the document was not prepared at the the time which was entered therein, that is, at 11.50 a.m. but must have been prepared after the court hours and, therefore, it was presented before the court on 7th of October, 1970. In this connection, Mr. Mulla has placed reliance on the observations of the learned Judges of the Punjab High Court in Gurdev Singh vs. The State(l) and also of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Tarlok Singh(2). He further contended that the delay in presenting the first information report in the court of the Magistrate gives rise to an inference of unfairness on the part of the investigating agency who got the report prepared after the investigation had actually started and therefore the entire prosecution case should be viewed with suspicion. He further contended that the delay in presenting the first information report in the court of the Magistrate gives rise to an inference of unfairness on the part of the investigating agency who got the report prepared after the investigation had actually started and therefore the entire prosecution case should be viewed with suspicion. He also urged that the circumtances of this case where the statements of the alleged eye witnesses were recorded by the police at a late stage and the irregularity committed while recovering the gun at the instance of the accused strengthens his theory that Pratap Singh and his associates were falsely implicated in this murder. 11. Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins a duty on the Police Officers to send the copy of the first information report immediately to the Magistrate concerned. This provision has been enacted by the legislature to provide a safeguard against the danger of introducing coloured version about the incident in the first information report which is undoubtedly a very valuable document in a cog-nizable offence. But the delay in submitting the first information report before the court in the present case in the light of other circumstances which we will presently discuss is not likely to create a suspicion about the unfairness on the part of the inves-tigating agency. 12. Mr. Bhim Raj, appearing on behalf of the complainant, however, argued that it is a practice prevalent in the State that the first information report is submitted to the court to the Magistrate through the agency of the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector attached 10 such court and, according to him, it is the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector who delayed the submission of the report and not the investigating officer who despatched the report with promptness. In this connection he drew our attention to certain old Police Regulations of 1948. In this connection he drew our attention to certain old Police Regulations of 1948. Regulation No. 292 of the said Regulations which deals with the despatch of the first information report mentions that such report shall be sent without delay to the Magistrate through the court officer but this procedure for presenting the report to the court cannot be said to be in vogue now in view of the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Rules of 1966 where Chapter V, para 5 5 lays down that the original copy of the first information report shall be a permanent record in the police station, the other three copies shall be submitted as follows: (a) One of the Superintendent of Police or other Gazetted Officer nominated by him; (b) One to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence as is re-quired by sec- 157, Cr.P.C. (c)...............This provision does not lay down the procedure that the copy of the report should be submitted in the court of the Magistrate through the officer of the court. In bur opinion it is not open to the prosecution to take resort to the provisions of the old Regulations of 1948 to justify the delayed submission of the copy of the Report before the Magistrate which should be promptly presented by the Investigating agency to ensure that the safeguards provided by the Code may not be rendered nugatory. The procedure which is being followed by the police authorities to send copies of the first information report to the court of the Magistrate is not in consonance with the mandate contained in sec. 157 Criminal Procedure Code or the Rules made by the State Government under the Police Act. We agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that sending of a copy of the first information report to the Magistrate is a kind of a safeguard against the tampering with the spontaneous version embodies in the first information report and, therefore, the investigating Officers must observe meticulous care in sending the copy of this important document to the Magistrate promptly and should not unnecessarily delay the transmission thereof. The Prosecuting Inspector attached to the court of a Magistrate is the representative of the prosecuting agency and not that of the court. The Prosecuting Inspector attached to the court of a Magistrate is the representative of the prosecuting agency and not that of the court. Therefore delivery of the copy of the document to such an officer cannot be said to be the submission of the report before the court In future, it is expected that the investigating officers shall take note of these observations of the Court and instead of adopting the procedure contained in the obsolete regulations would produce the document before the Magistrate with all promptness. 13. We have now to consider the argument of Mr. Mulla that the delayed submission of the copy of the first information report before the Magistrate has cast a cloud of doubt on the correctness of the prosecution case. The substance of Mr. Mullas argument is that the investigating officer after calling P.W. 1 Kurdaram from his village somewhere in the evening got the manoeuvred document Ex. P/1 prepared and then the names of the assailants were falsely involved for this murder of Surjaram and it was done with an ulterior motive. This argument raises two questions for determination: (1) whether the delayed submission of the report gives rise to an inference that the first information report Ex. P/l was written by Shri Anar Singh P.W 10 somewhere in the evening after calling Kurdaram from his home and if so, (ii)whether the entire investigation stands vitiated due to unfairness of the investigating officer. It is true that in submitting the report Ex. P/l before the Magistrate Anar Singh (P.W. 10) did not implicitly carry out the mandate contained in sec. 157 Criminal Procedure Code, but his statement is that the first information report was despatched 6n the very day when it was executed and it is argued by learned Deputy Govern-ment Advocate that it was due to the inadvertence on the part of the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector that it was actually submitted with some delay. This fact cannot be denied that the first information report reached the Magistrate on the 7th of October, 1970 at 1 30 P.M. According to the prosecution witnesses Anar Singh, soon after registering this case proceeded to the spot of occurrence and started investigation and there he prepared various memos Ex. P 4 to Ex. P 9 on 6th of October, 1970. P 4 to Ex. P 9 on 6th of October, 1970. It is evident from these documents that each one of them contains a reference of the serial number of the first information report which was allotted to it by Shri Anar Singh while taking down the report in the register. This type of reference is possible only when the document Ex. P/l had already been executed before the memos Ex. P/4 to Ex. P9 were prepared by him. In this view of the matter, it is difficult for us to accept the contention of Mr. Mulla that the delayed submission of the report before the Magistrate should give rise to an inference that the report Ex. P/l was post-investigation document and it leads to the conclusion that the investigating agency was unfair towards the accused persons. 14. The prosecution has mainly relied on the testimony of the two eye witnesses, namely, Kurdaram (P.W 1) and Maduram (P.W. 4) as no other incriminating circumstances could be brought on the record which may go to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. However a. 12 bore gun was recovered at the instance of Pratap Singh in certain suspicious circumstances, but the recovery of the gun itself which was the licensed gun of the accused does not in any manner provide a link to connect the accused with the crime. In these circumstances the infirmities pointed out by Mr. Mulla to challenge the recovery hardly helps the defence to further its cause. Therefore we do not propose to discuss these infirmities as it will be an academic discussion only. In this view of the matter we propose to scrutinise the evidence of the eye witnesses with a degree of care which it requires because both these witnesses have been characterised as highly interested and partisan witnesses. 15. Kurdaram (P.W. 1) is a star witness in this case. He has deposed that on the day prior to the date of the incident the Tehsildar had gone to his village for the verification of the electoral rolls and at the time when the Tehsildar was examining the rolls, heated words were exchanged between Pratap Singh and Surjaram. 15. Kurdaram (P.W. 1) is a star witness in this case. He has deposed that on the day prior to the date of the incident the Tehsildar had gone to his village for the verification of the electoral rolls and at the time when the Tehsildar was examining the rolls, heated words were exchanged between Pratap Singh and Surjaram. He further states that he was informed by Surjaram that his sons name had been deleted from the voters list and, therefore, at the suggestion of Surjaram he agreed to proceed to Bhadra next day with Surjaram in his jeep. This fact that hot words were exchanged between accused Pratap Singh and Surjaram finds support from the statement of Pratap Singh recorded under sec. 342, Criminal Procedure Code wherein he has can-didly admitted that he had exchanged hot words with Surjaram. He however made it clear that the exchange of hot words did not relate to the fact of the deletion of the names of the sons of Kurdaram and Maduram. 16 Witness Kurdaram further states that he went with the deceased to the Tehsil at Bhadra, when he and Maduram were asked by the deceased to sit on a Chabutra outside the tehsil building and Surjaram alone went inside the tehsil to meet the Tehsildar. After some time, Surjaram returned from the Tehsildars room and informed the witness that they would come again as the Tehsildar was busy and it was at this suggestion of Surjaram that all the three, namely, Surjaram, Kurdaram and Maduram went towards the bazar. This fact that Surjaram had visited the tehsil-headquarter at about 11.00 in morning of 6th of October, 1970 is amply corrobo-rated by Nanu Singh, Tehsildar (P.W. 2). 17. The story of the prosecution as unfolded by Kurdaram P.W. 1 further reveals that as the complainant party reached the shop of Surjeet Singh Sethi P.W. 3, accused Pratap Singh along with his three associates surrounded Surjaram and at the point of his gun Pratap Singh threw a challenge to Surjaram. In order to save his life, Surjaram tried to take shelter in the shop of Surjeet Singh Sethi and ran into it but he was closely followed by Pratap Singh. In order to save his life, Surjaram tried to take shelter in the shop of Surjeet Singh Sethi and ran into it but he was closely followed by Pratap Singh. It is stated by the witness that when Surjaram was about to enter the inner apartment of the shop he was shot at by Pratap Singh by his double barrel gun which hit him on the neck with a result that Surjaram dropped dead on a durree spread at the threshold of the inner apartment. The fact that the murder had taken place at the shop of Surjeet Singh Sethi is not denied by the defence. The time of the murder is also not in question. Surjeet Singh Sethi corroborates the statement of Kurdaram (P.W 1) to this extent that a person, who could not be identified by him as he had seen the back of the assailant while he was getting out of his shop, had fired his gun towards Surjaram when he was trying to enter into the inner apartment of the shop and the result of that fire was that Surjaram died instantaneously. 18. Maduram (P. W. 4) is another eye witness. He fully corroborates Kurda Ram on all particulars relating to their visits to Bhadra and when Surjaram could not meet the Tehsildar all of them came to the market where the incident had taken place. He is not at variance With Kurdaram about the manner in which Pratap Singh chased Surjaram in the shop of Surjeet Singh and then killed him by the gun-shot fire. It is argued that P.W. 4 Maduram had no occasion to visit Bhadra as it has not been established that his son name was actually deleted from the electroral rolls. It is true that the prosecution has not produced any record about the deletion of the names of the voters from the list but Maduram was ail through acting in this connection at the instruction of Surjaram and therefore his going to Bhadra in the company of Surjaram cannot be said to be an unnatural action on his part. The presence of Maduram P W. 4 at Bhadra with Surjaram on the day of occurrence cannot be doubted. The presence of Maduram P W. 4 at Bhadra with Surjaram on the day of occurrence cannot be doubted. It was then argued that Madurams statement is full of lies because soon after the incident he left for his village in the jeep to inform the relations of Surjaram about his tragic end as deposed by Kurdaram P.W. 1, but as stated by Anar Singh he was seen on the spot: of occurrence when Shri Anar Singh P.W. 10 went there for investigation. Another contradiction pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant is that Maduram had stated that when he returned from village Mehrana after informing the relatives of Surjaram he meet for the first time the investigating officer at 2.30 p.m. at the Police Station This irreconcilable discrepancy in the statements of Maduram P.W. 4 and Anar Singh P.W. 10 about their meeting each other, according to Mr. Mulla, renders the evidence of the alleged eye witness Maduram incredible. It cannot be doubted that soon after the incident the first information report was lodged within 20 minutes of the incident at the police station, Bhadra and the name of Pratap Singh and his associates ware specifically mentioned as those who were responsible for the murder of Surjaram. Document Ex. P/l further supports the account of murder as given by Kurdaram at the trial. It is established beyond doubt that soon after the report Ex. P/l had been registered Anar Singh P W. 10 reached the spot of occurrence and he found the dead body of Surjaram lying exactly in the position which was given out by Kurdaram when the report was lodged by him. The statement made by Maduram P.W. 4 at the trial fully tallies with the description of the incident as disclosed by Kurdaram P.W. 1 which fully gets corroboration from the first information report Ex PL All these circumstances when carefully examined hardly leave any room for doubt to hold that the eye witnesses have not given the true account of the incident. Their testimony can safely be acted upon to fasten the guilt of murdering Surjaram on Pratap Singh. 19. Their testimony can safely be acted upon to fasten the guilt of murdering Surjaram on Pratap Singh. 19. It is true that village Mehrana was a faction-ridden village and the entire community was divided in two clear groups, one headed by accused Pratap Singh and the other by deceased Surjaram and it is also clear that P.W 4 Kurdaram and Madu Ram belonged to the party of Surjaram as it was at the instance of Surjaram that they had gone to Bhadra to get the electoral rolls corrected in respect of the entries of their sons names, but this circumstance in our opinion is not sufficient to discredit the testimony of these two eye witnesses who in our opinion have come out with truth. The discrepancies pointed out in their evidence are of minor nature which do not go to make their statement of doubtful character. The accused by advancing the argument that local witnesses have not been examined could not be allowed to take advantage of the weakness shown by the people of Bhadra. The party affiliations of the two eye witnesses, no doubt, puts the Court on its guard to scrutinise their evidence with all care and caution while examining the statements of these two eye witnesses. We were fully conscious of this circumstance but looking to the manner in which the eye witnesses have deposed before the trial Court we can safely hold that their testimony fully inspires confidence. In our opinion, the court below has rightly placed reliance on the statements of these two eye witnesses. 20. Last attempt made by Mr. Mulla to discredit the eye witnesses is by advancing an argument that both of them have tried to falsely involve the three innocent associates of Pratap Singh who were ultimately found innocent and acquitted by the trial court. On a careful perusal of the judgment of the trial court we find that this argument has also no weight. It is true that the three co-accused who were tried with the appellant were acquitted by the learned trial judge, but the reason given by the learned judge to acquit them is that the prosecution has failed to establish such circumstances which could attract the application of the provisions of sec. 34, Indian Penal Code to convict those three persons. It is true that the three co-accused who were tried with the appellant were acquitted by the learned trial judge, but the reason given by the learned judge to acquit them is that the prosecution has failed to establish such circumstances which could attract the application of the provisions of sec. 34, Indian Penal Code to convict those three persons. The State Government has not filed any appeal against that finding of the trial court and, therefore, we do not express our opinion on this point, but one thing is clear that the learned judge did not give any finding of innocence of the three co-accused and did not discard the testimony of the witnesses regarding their presence on the spot of occurrence. The learned Judge was however of opinion that the element of common intention was missing to warrant the conviction of the other three accused persons. In this view of the matter this argument is not available to Mr. Mulla. 21. For the reasons discussed above, we find no force in this appeal of Pratap Singh and it is, therefore, dismissed. 22. While parting with this case We would however like to observe that it was a fit case for awarding the extreme penalty of death, but the State Govt. have not filed any revision application for the enhancement of the sentence. We also did not think it proper to suo moto issue notice of enhancement after three and a half years and therefore the accused has escaped the death sentence which he very much deserved.