JUDGMENT 1. - Prem Chand, accused-appellant, has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 11th September, 1976, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 302, IPC for committing the murder of Gopiraman and sentenced to imprisonment for life and, for an offence under Section 307, IPC, for making an attempt to commit the murder of Virendra Kumar to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 26th December, 1973, at 1.30 a.m. Ex. P/1, FIR was handed over at the Railway Station, Bhawani Mandi to PW/15 Rameshwarlal (SHO), which was a written report of PW/1 Virendra Kumar. According to the prosecution story, one Virendra Kumar alighted from the compartment at Bhawanimandi Railway Station from passenger 56-UP local. On 25th December, 1973, at 6 p.m. after seeing his father Gopi Raman, standing on the platform who had come there to receive him. Virendra Kumar went towards the rear of the train where his father was standing when they were talking and proceeding towards the compartment. Virendra Kumar heard the sound of gun-shot coming from the back-side. He saw the accused-appellant, Prem Chand, firing at his father from a revolver. It is alleged that after the first shot, Prem Chand fired two more shots at his father. It is further alleged that Amrit Singh, Babu Khan and two-three friends were shouting and saying to Prem Chand to kill Gopi Raman and his son Virendra Kumar (PW/1). Virendra Kumar (PW/1) seeing the accused firing tried to catch hold of him, but he fired on him. which hit his right hand and pierced Amrik Singh and others sprang on him and ran away after releasing Prem Chand. Gopi Raman sustained injuries and fell down on the platform. At that time. Ram Swaroop and Krishna Kumar and others were present. Both, father and somewhere taken to the hospital in a thela to Bhawani Mandi hospital where Gopi Raman was declared dead. It is further stated that the incident was reported by the Asstt. Station Master, Bhawanimandi on telephone. Virendra Kumar (PW/1) lodged a written report Ex.P/1. Virendra Singh sent Ex.P/1 with his cousin Om Prakash (PW/10) to the Police Station, Bhawani Mandi. This report Ex P 1 was handed over to Gopal Singh ASI, PS Bhawani Mandi. It is further stated that the incident was reported by the Asstt. Station Master, Bhawanimandi on telephone. Virendra Kumar (PW/1) lodged a written report Ex.P/1. Virendra Singh sent Ex.P/1 with his cousin Om Prakash (PW/10) to the Police Station, Bhawani Mandi. This report Ex P 1 was handed over to Gopal Singh ASI, PS Bhawani Mandi. But, it was not taken by him on the ground that the case related to the jurisdiction of Railway Police. Ex P./1 was thereupon taken by Om Prakash PW/10, to Behsoda Mandi where it was given to the Head Constable, Behsoda Mandi who gave it to Madan Lal (PW/7) and Madan Lal handed over the same to Rameshwar Lal (PW/15), SHO. 3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses. The accused denied the allegations and sought trial. The accused was charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 307, IPC. In his statement, stated that he has been falsely implicated. The accused has examined one witness Mohan Singh in his defence. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge held the accused, Prem Chand, guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPC, for committing the murder of Gopi Raman and for an offence under Section 307, IPC for making an attempt to commit the murder of Virendra Kumar. He was accordingly sentenced to imprisonment for life for committing the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- for committing an offence under Section 307, IPC. Through this appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction on various grounds. 4. Mr. Frank Anthony, learned counsel for the accused-appellant assisted by Mr. K. K. Mehrish and Mr. U. N. Bhandari Advocates, challenged the conviction of the appellant on the following grounds:- 1. That, ex facie, there was obviously no motive for Prem Chand, appellant, to commit the alleged offence. The Court erred gravely in law in finding the motive of instigation, by firstly joining the alleged five associates and then pre-judging their guilt although ordering their tria1 under Section 302/307 and 109, IPC. 2. That the trial Court erred palpably in giving a series of benefits of doubt in respect of tenability or veracity of the so-called FIR and the repeated evasions by Virendra Kumar, PW/1. 3. That Virendra Kumar PW/1, although injured told a series of palpable untruths. 2. That the trial Court erred palpably in giving a series of benefits of doubt in respect of tenability or veracity of the so-called FIR and the repeated evasions by Virendra Kumar, PW/1. 3. That Virendra Kumar PW/1, although injured told a series of palpable untruths. As such, his testimony should not have been believed. 4. That Ram Swaroop PW/23 and Indar Mai PW/2 were procured witnesses. They were interested in Virendra Kumar (PW/1) and, thus, their testimony should not have been believed by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. That the seizure of weapon of offence was against law and that the empties that had been seized were not fired from the pistol which was recovered from the accused. 6. That Mirza Hassan Baig, Head Constable of Beh soda Mandi, to whom the FIR Ex P/1 was given by Om Prakash PW/10 was not examined and that the statement of Om Prakash, the carrier of report Ex. P/1, was not recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. 5. Mr. Om Prakash, learned Public Prosecutor, controverting the arguments, urged on behalf of the appellant, submitted that there was no error in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Jhalawar. 6. We shall, now, deal with the submissions made by Shri Frank Anthony, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, on the various aspects of the case stated above. The first submission urged by the learned counsel is that the substratum of the prosecution case was that Virendra Kumar (PW/1) stated that his uncle Satyavir and Dharmvir had old rivalry with so the Sardars, namely, Amrik Singh, and Gurvachan Singh, and therefore, they had conspired along with Prem Chand to commit murder of Gopi Raman who looked after the case on behalf of the prosecution against Satyavir who was tried for the murder of Ravel Singh. Ravel Singh was the brother of Amrik Singh. Mr. Anthony submitted that the trial Court itself recorded a finding that there was rivalry between Prem Chand, accused-appellant and Virendra Kumar PW/1. The learned Counsel has also submitted that the trial Court in its judgment had observed that the accused was a young an and was instigated to commit the offence. But, surprisingly, no cognisance was take by the trial Court against these five persons viz, Amrik Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Babu Khah, Moharn and Sohan for the Offence under Section 302/149 and 109 IPC. But, surprisingly, no cognisance was take by the trial Court against these five persons viz, Amrik Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Babu Khah, Moharn and Sohan for the Offence under Section 302/149 and 109 IPC. The learned counsel has further urged that the observations made by the trial Court about the allegations of incitement or abetment against the above mentioned persons was against law. It is argued that the prosecution case against Prem Chand and the said five persons was one integrated and non-separable, but the appellant was singled out for punishment and, this amounts to asking the Court to make out a new case and is not permissible under law. It is also urged that the trial Court has completely misconstrued the law in observing that it could not take cognizance against the alleged five associates with whom there was enmity with the deceased and, therefore, prejudiced their case by holding that these five persons who had enmity had instigated Prem Chand to commit the murder. It is true that the trial Court has observed as follows ; "During the investigation, the names of these persons were mentioned in the FIR, but the SHO did not find the case made out against them. But in my opinion the evidence which has been produced before me shows that these people were also present at the railway station at that time, and they instigated the accused, Prem Chand, for committing murder. Therefore, they can be held guilty for committing an offence under Section 302/149 and 109, IPC." 7. It may be mentioned were that the prosecution moved an application before the committing Court as well as before the trial Court at the earliest for taking cognizance against the other accused persons. It is also strongly submitted that the trial Court erred agregiously in not invoking Section 319 read with Section 193, Cr. P. C. and observing that under Section 193, Cr. P. C. a Court of Session was not empowered to take cognizance against the above named persons, as the Sessions Court was not competent to take cognizance. We do not want to go into the merits of this argument as to whether the Sessions Court was competent or not to take cognizance of the case against the above named persons as eventually it may prejudice the trial of the case, if any, against the said persons. We do not want to go into the merits of this argument as to whether the Sessions Court was competent or not to take cognizance of the case against the above named persons as eventually it may prejudice the trial of the case, if any, against the said persons. As we are satisfied that the infirmities pointed out above could be resolved by examining the prosecution case as if no motive is proved, to commit the alleged offence. On behalf of the accused-appellant, it has been pointed out that if the motive is not proved, the accused cannot be convicted and the learned counsel placed reliance on Anne Negeswara Rao v. Public Prosecutor, A. P. ( AIR 1975 SC 1387 ) and State of UP v. Hari Prasad ( AIR 1974 SC 1740 ) . On the basis of these authorities it has been submitted that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the said cases have held that if motive is the substratum of the prosecution case and if the motive is not proved, the whole prosecution case would fail. In the case of N.A. Negeswar Rao (Supra), the facts were quite different. In that case, the learned Sessions Judge and convicted the appellant. The prosecution case was that PWs 1 and 2 were the eye-witnesses. They saw the appellant coming on a cycle and passing them and hearing a thud turned back and saw the appellant stabbing the deceased. It was observed that PW.'l had some motive to falsely implicate the appellant and that the presence of PW/2 was not held to be proved. Further the Court held that it was not a case where the guilt of the appellant could not be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. It was in these circumstances that the question of motive was considered and held that the use of abusive language by the deceased on the previous day in a quarrel between the deceaseds family and the appellants party, was insufficient motive for murder. Thus, this ruling does not help the appellant. In State of UP v. Hari Prasad (supra), the High Court recorded a finding that the occurrence took place under cover of darkness and that in the absence of any light none of the prosecution witnesses could have identified the culprits. The High Court confirmed the order of acquittal. Thus, this ruling does not help the appellant. In State of UP v. Hari Prasad (supra), the High Court recorded a finding that the occurrence took place under cover of darkness and that in the absence of any light none of the prosecution witnesses could have identified the culprits. The High Court confirmed the order of acquittal. Thus, it was a case of circumstantial evidence. On behalf of the State, it was submitted before the Supreme Court that it was open to the High Court to examine the evidence apart from the question whether Vishwanath was assaulted through mistaken identity, but this argument was not accepted as the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the very foundation of the prosecution case was that the accused had a motive to commit the murder of the complainant and that he mistook Vishvanath for the complainant and that Vishwanath was murdered as a result of this unfortunate mistake. In those circumstances, it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that it was not open to the prosecution to ask the Court to discard the very substratum of their case and to construct a new theory founded on a hypothesis presented for the first time before the Court. Thus, this case is also distinguishable. 8. Om behalf of the State, the learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the following authorities:- (1) Rajindar Kumar v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1966 SC 1322 ) (2) Shivji Sahebrao Bohade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (1973 Cr. Appeal Reporter (SC) 410) (3) Kishan v. The State of Rajasthan (1981 RLR (Raj.) 207) (4) Molu v. State of Haryana 1976 (4) SCC 362 ) , Bal Karansingh v. State of Raj. (1977 RLW 212) The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that proof of motive for the crime is not necessary where direct evidence is available. He submits that even if motive is proved and there is no other evidence, there can be no conviction. Similarly, if there is no evidence of motive, but other reliable and sustainable evidence, direct or circumstantial, is available, there can be conviction. In Molu's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with motive, observed as under:- "It is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. In Molu's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with motive, observed as under:- "It is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes the motive is clear that can be proved and sometimes, however, the motive is shrouded in mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same. If however, the evidence of the eye-witnesses is creditworthy and is believed by the Court which has placed implicit reliance on them, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant. 9. In the case wherein the evidence of eye-witnesses is creditworthy, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant. In the instant case, the learned trial Court has placed reliance on the testimony of eye-witnesses, one of them is the son of the deceased, who himself was injured, at the same time, when the appellant fired shot which resulted into the death of Gopi Raman. We may observe that simply because the motive is not established, the case of the prosecution based on direct or circumstantial evidence cannot be thrown away. In the absence of proof of motive the only precaution that is needed for the judicial courts is to take deeper forensic search. Thus, if there is reliable evidence to sustain the charge against the appellant on which conviction can be based and the fact that there is no clear proof of motive would not necessarily lead to the contrary conclusion that the charge could not be brought home to the accused. Even in the absence of motive, the credibility of the witnesses can be relied upon. Thus, there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant on ground No. 1. 10. The next submission on which the conviction has been challenged is that the Court erred in giving series of benefits of doubt in respect of tenability or veracity of the FIR and repeated evasions by Virendra Kumar (PW/1). Virendra Kumar (PW/1) is the son of the deceased Gopi Raman who was injured at the time of occurrence for which the appellant faced trial. Virendra Kumar (PW/1) is the son of the deceased Gopi Raman who was injured at the time of occurrence for which the appellant faced trial. In order to consider the submissions made under the above ground, it would be better if the evidence of PW/5 Abdul Wahid Khan and Gopal Singh (PW/8) is first considered and examined. Abdul Wahid Khan (PW/5) has deposed that when he came out he met Virendra Kumar carrying his father in the totally and was going towards the exit of the station. He asked Virendra Kumar as to what had happened. Then, he said that they have been shot bullets. PW/5 Abdul Wahid Khan was ASM at the Railway Station, Bhawanimandi. This witness give information on telephone to ASI Gopal Singh (PW/8), Bhawanimandi that somebody had been shot there and that one boy was also shot and that their condition was critical. An information also came from Hospital Bhawanimandi to ASI Gopal Singh PW/8 that a person had arrived there who was shot and was dead. It was also informed that a person named Virendra Kumar was also shot bullet and was in the hospital. This witness Gopal Singh recorded both the reports in the daily report book and sent Abdul Hanif, head constable, on the site of the occurrence at the station. Gopal Singh PW/8 went to the hospital. He prepared Ex. 6, the memo of the condition of Gopi Raman and Ex P/7 seizure memo. He handed over all the papers to Madan Lal, Head Constable, GRP, through Ex. P/5. 11. Mr. Frank Anthony, learned Counsel for the accused appellant, concentrated his arguments and submitted with vehemence that the FIR Ex. P/12 is a concocted document. He submitted that the FIR was lodged at a very late stage, the incident took place at about 6 p.m. on 25th December, 1973 and the FIR was received by Rameshwar Lal in the morning at 1.30 a.m. on 20th December, 1973. The learned counsel submitted that no reasonable explanation has been given as to why immediate after the incident took place, the FIR was not lodged. The FIR was sent by Virendra Kumar through his brother/cousin to Bhawani Mandi Police Station. The learned counsel submitted that no reasonable explanation has been given as to why immediate after the incident took place, the FIR was not lodged. The FIR was sent by Virendra Kumar through his brother/cousin to Bhawani Mandi Police Station. Om Prakash PW/10 took the FIR which was written by Virendra Kumar, to Bhawani Mandi Police Station, where he met Gopal Singh, ASI, but he did not accept the same on the ground that the incident had not taken place within his jurisdiction. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel that there were certain interpolations in the FIR inasmuch as the original FIR was addressed to the SHO, Bhawanimandi and the word Bhawani madi was not cut out and in its place Behsodamandi was written. The date was all changed According to the learned counsel, the change in the date was from 26th to 25th. It has also been pointed out that Virendra Kumar in his statement deposed that the FIR was sent by his brother to the Police Station, Bhawani Mandi. In the evidence it has come on record that Om Prakash PW/10. the alleged bearer of the letter was not his brother, but his cousin. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for Gopal Singh was examined as PW/8, but he has not been questioned as to whether he had refused to receive the FIR. One more infirmity was pointed out by the learned counsel that Mirza Hasan Beg was not examined. The report written by Virendra Kumar was sent through his brother Om Prakash PW/10 and when it was not taken by Gopal Singh. ASI at Behsoda Mandi Police Station, it was later on delivered to the Head Constable at Behsoda Mandi. At Police Station. Behscda Mandi the Head Constable was Mirza Hasan Beg. The report Ex P/1 was given by Mirze Hasan Beg to Madan Lal on the night of 25th itself and Madan Lal gave it to Rameshwar Lal along with other papers in the morning at 1.30 a m. Thus, he submits that Mirza Hasan Beg was an important witness and when his statement was recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. he should have been examined. P. C. he should have been examined. It has also been pointed out that Gopal Singh PW/8, in his statement deposed that no papers were delivered to Madan Lal in his presence by any constable or head constable of Behsoda Mandi. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no evidence that the report was received in Behsodamandi. The learned Public Prosecutor, controverting the arguments has submitted that there is no infirmity at all in this regard. He has also submitted that there was no delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence had taken place on 25th December, 1973, at 6 pm. Virendra Kumar PW/1, When it was injured, was medically examined at 6 45 p.m. by Dr. J.K, Arora (PW/9). Thereafter, Vitendra Kumar went to his brothers house, as had an apprehension that the assailant may kill him It was after reaching a safe place that he wrote Ex. P/1, FIR and sent it to the Police Station through PW/10 Om Prakash who first went to the Police Station, Bhawani Mandi but the police refused to take the report there and, as such, PW/10 Om Prakash went to the Police Station, Behsodamandi and handed over the report there. The head constable at Behsodamandi after putting his note on Ex. P/1 gave it to Madan Lal Head Constable, who gave it to PW/15 Rameshwar Lal. PW/15 Rameswar Lal has noted the time on the written report Ex.P/1 as 1.30 a.m. on 26th December Madan Lal has categorically deposed that he got the FIR before 120 Clock in the evening of 25th December, 1973. As regards correction in date PW/10 Om Prakash has explained the same. He deposed that Head Constable at Behsoda Mandi in his endorsement wrongly mentioned the date as 24th December, 1973 and the same was corrected by the Head Constable in his presence as 25th December, 1973. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is no necessity of producing Mirza Hasan Beg. The endorsement of Mirza Has Beg has been proved by PW/10 Om Parkash. The learned Public Prosecutor, thus, urged that there was no delay in lagging the FIR and that the circumstances have been explained by positive evidence. He placed reliance on the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. The endorsement of Mirza Has Beg has been proved by PW/10 Om Parkash. The learned Public Prosecutor, thus, urged that there was no delay in lagging the FIR and that the circumstances have been explained by positive evidence. He placed reliance on the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. He referred to Lablji Singh v. State of UP ( AIR 1985 SC 1266 ) to substantiate his arguments that in case delay is explained then there remains no infirmity and a conviction can be based. 12. We have carefully examined the respective contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and that made by the learned Public Prosecutor. Since we are in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, it is not necessary for us to burden this judgment with the repetition and details of the evidence. However, from the evidence of Madan Lal PW/7. Om Prakash PW/10 and Rameshwar Lal PW/15, it is clearly established that Ex/1 was delivered to Mirza Hasan Beg and who delivered the same to Madan Lal on the night of 25th December, 1973, itself and Madan Lal gave it to Rameshwar Lal along with other papers in the morning at 1.30 a m. As already stated above, that ASM Abdul Wahid Khan PW/5 delivered information on telephone from Bhawani Mandi Station to Gopal Singh ASI, PW/8 that somebody had been shot there, and one boy was also shot and their condition was critical. It is also on record that the information came from the hospital. Bhawani Mandi that a person had arrived who was dead. Reports were recorded in the book by Gopal Singh PW/8 who sent Abdul Hussain on the site of occurrence at the railway station and he himself went to the Police Station Gopal Singh has also deposed that he prepared the seizure memo of the condition of Gopi Ram who laid on the troll of the hospital while Virendra Kumar was lying in the room beside. Gopal Singh has further deposed that Ex P,6 was prepared by him which describes the injuries on the body of Gopi Raman. He also proved Ex. P/7, seizure memo. He has further deposed that he submitted report on post-mortem of Gopi Raman. Gopal Singh has further deposed that Ex P,6 was prepared by him which describes the injuries on the body of Gopi Raman. He also proved Ex. P/7, seizure memo. He has further deposed that he submitted report on post-mortem of Gopi Raman. He has also started that Madan Lal Head Constable GRP had come to the hospital to whom he handed over all the papers through Ex P/5 receipt. The investigation had started after the receipt of Ex. P/1, the report written by Virendra Kumar. The alleged interpolations in the dates have also been explained by PW/10 Om Prakash. From the original report, it is also clear that the change in the date was from 24th to 25th December, 1973. The question of 24th December, 1973, does not arise at all as it is not the case of the defence that the alleged accident had taken place on 24th December. 1973. Virendra Kumar was in the hospital. He himself was injured and it could very easily be understood that he must have been under some mental tension and when he reached the safe place of his brothers house he sent the report Ex.P/1 with his cousin Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove that there was no delay in sending the FIR and that there were no grounds to doubt the tenability and veracity of the FIR. 13. The next argument submitted by the learned counsel for the accused appellant is that Virendra Kumar PW/1 had opportunities to disclose the name of the accused, Prem Chand, but he failed to do so and this creates double, and proves that the name of the accused, Prem Chand, was wrongly implicated. It is pointed out that Abdul Wahid PW/5 met Virendra Kumar. Abdul Wahid (PW/5) was present at the site of the occurrence Hemet Virendra Kumar when he was carrying his father in the tolly at exit of Railway Station. Abdul Wahid Khan PW/5 deposed that when he met Virendra Kumar carrying his father in the trolly he asked what has happened and the reply was that he had been shot. On the basis of the statement of Abdul Wahid (PW/5), the learned counsel for the accused-appellant wants to draw an inference that Virendra Kumar had an opportunity to disclose the name of the accused to hint, but he did not disclose the name of the person, who had fired. On the basis of the statement of Abdul Wahid (PW/5), the learned counsel for the accused-appellant wants to draw an inference that Virendra Kumar had an opportunity to disclose the name of the accused to hint, but he did not disclose the name of the person, who had fired. Learned counsel through the statement of Gopal Singh (PW/8) also tried to draw an inference that it was with some purpose that Virendra Kumar refused to reply to the queries raised by Gopal Singh (PW/8 In the same series, learned counsel refers to Dr. J.K. Arora's statement and submits that in his evidence Dr Arora has stated that when he asked Virendra Kumar what had happened he told that some one had shot bis father. Same criticism has been levelled with regard to the statement of Rameshwar Lal (PW/15). SHO who was the Investigating Officer, in the case. Learned counsel wants to draw an inference that Virendra Kumar had deliberately evaded to give the name of the accused to this witness. Learned Prosecutor has submitted that the criticism raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is not at all tenable. It was not necessary for Virendra Kumar to disclose the name of the accused to each and every person who had come in contact with him and he disclosed the name of the assailant in Ex.P/1 which was sent to the Police Station in through his brother in time. 14. We have considered this aspect of the matter very carefully and we are persuaded to confirm the finding recorded by the trial Court in this regard. Gopal Singh did not inform Virendra Kumar that he wanted to record the statement in connection with the investigation. In fact, he had no mind to investigate into the matter as he was clear in his mind that the area where the occurrence had taken place was not within his jurisdiction. The statement of Gopal Singh is to the effect that he tried to take his statement, but he neither gave nor replied to his questions. This witness Gopal Singh never asked Virendra Kumar to disclose the name of the assailants. Dr. J.K. Arora (PW/9) has only stated that when he asked Virendra Kumar as to what had happened, he told that some one had shot his father. This witness Gopal Singh never asked Virendra Kumar to disclose the name of the assailants. Dr. J.K. Arora (PW/9) has only stated that when he asked Virendra Kumar as to what had happened, he told that some one had shot his father. He did not ask any question to Virendra Kumar about the name of the assailant and thus the observations made by the trial Court that Virendra Kumar was not bound to tell to every person meeting him the name of the assailant, is correct. Abdul Wahid Khan PW/5 did not ask the name of the assailant. As regards the statement of Rameshwar Lal, we are of the opinion that it stands explained that when he met Virendra Kumar on 27/12/1973, he did not give his statement on the ground that there were certain guests with him and that he was not feeling well. From this statement, it is very difficult to infer that he evaded to make any statement, as evidently, he had already disclosed the entire story and the name of the assailant in Ex. P/1, which was sent on 25th December, 1973. Thus, we are not convinced with this limb of argument submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. 15. Now, we consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant in the matter of Ground No. 3. It is submitted that Virendra Kumar (PW/1) is not a witness of sterling worth looking to his conduct, as he has not disclosed the name of the accused to PW/5 Abdul Wahid Khan, PW/9, Dr. J K. Arora and PW/15 Rameshwar Lal, just after the occurrence. It is further submitted that Virendra Kumar PW/1 modulated his statement during the trial. It is also submitted that in the FIR the name of PW/2, Indar Mal, was not mentioned as an eye witness and that the two material witnesses, Krishna Kumar and Mirza Beg were not examined. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has also pointed out some inconsistencies in the statement made by Virendra Kumar. To substantiate this, it has been pointed out that in his statement Virendra Kumar (P W/l) has stated that in the report be had stated the presence of two persons and had written `vegara' for others, he had written this because he did not know all the people by name, but only by faces. To substantiate this, it has been pointed out that in his statement Virendra Kumar (P W/l) has stated that in the report be had stated the presence of two persons and had written `vegara' for others, he had written this because he did not know all the people by name, but only by faces. It was afterwards when he stated about the identification. then he disclosed their names. It has also been suggested that Virendra Kumar (PW/1) in his statement admitted that there were 200 to 300 people on the platform of Bhawanimandi Station and that in between his father and the accused, there were five or seven people and they were visible. But Virendra Kumar did not disclose their names. Learned counsel also pointed out that in his statement PW/1 Virendra Kumar has deposed that there were 5-6 shots fired one of which had hit his hand and the rest hit his father. The learned counsel on the basis of this statement, wants to infer that the first shot, thus, hit the hand of Virendra Kumar and the rest i.e. 4 or 5 shots hit his father. The statement which has been recorded in the Court speaks of a different story. 16. We have carefully considered the above objections raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. We have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor on this ground. While discussing evidence in respect of contentions under Item No. 2 of the objections, we have explained that there was no obligation on the part of Virendra Kumar for the disclosure of the names of the accused to Abdul Wahid Khan and Gopal Singh. When Virendra Kumar was assured of his safety, he wrote Ex. P/1 FIR disclosing the name of the accused and sent it to the Police Station. Om Prakash (PW/10) went to the Police Station, Bhawani Mandi, but as the police people refused to take the report, he went to the Police Station, Behsodamandi and handed over the report there, where the Head Constable made an endorsement on Ex P/1 from G to H. This report was delivered to PW/15 Rameshwar Lal by Madan Lal PW/7. As regards the discrepancies pointed out in the statement of PW/1, we are of the opinion that, in fact, there are no discrepancies and even if there is any discrepancy here and there, it does not materially affect the prosecution case. As regards the discrepancies pointed out in the statement of PW/1, we are of the opinion that, in fact, there are no discrepancies and even if there is any discrepancy here and there, it does not materially affect the prosecution case. The discrepancies also stand explained by the circumstances that when FIR was lodged and prior to it, Virendra Kumar must have been under a mental shock as his father was murdered at public place and he himself was injured. It is also true that he was not supposed to give the names of the assailants or full account of the incident to all who met him, even if they mayor may not be concerned with the matter. Virendra Kumar cannot be doubted. He was seen by the prosecution witnesses at the place of occurrence of the crime and was himself injured. As such, his presence on the spot, witnessing the entire incident cannot be disbelieved. 17. As regards the enmity. PW/1 Virendra Kumar has deposed that his uncle Satyavir and Dharamvir were having old enmity with the sardars and that Prem Chand and Amarik were living together and in the case of theft, Amarik had taken the bail of Prem Chand accused. Thus, there was co-relations between Prem Chand and one of the Sardars. We have explained that even if no motive is proved, the prosecution is entitled to maintain the conviction, if the prosecution evidence is reliable to support the charge of murder. A perusal of Ex.P/1, FIR will show that shots were fired on his father and one of the bullets hit Virendra Kumar and, there seems to be no inconsistency between Ex 1 and the deposition of Virendra Kumar (PW/1). In his statement made in the Court, on 7th October, 1974, PW/1 Virendra Kumar has deposed that when he and his father were proceeding towards the compartment, then he heard sound of bullet fire from rear side and he turned back side and saw Prem Chand accused firing the bullet on his father and two bullets were shot towards his father by Prem Chand accused from revolver. He has also deposed that when he tried to catch hold of Prem Chand, in the mean time, Prem Chand fired a bullet at him, which hit his right hand. Thus, there is no inconsistency in the FIR and the statement of this witness before the Court. He has also deposed that when he tried to catch hold of Prem Chand, in the mean time, Prem Chand fired a bullet at him, which hit his right hand. Thus, there is no inconsistency in the FIR and the statement of this witness before the Court. In his statement, it is true, Virendra Kumar (PW/1) has deposed that there were 200 to 300 people at Bhawani Mandi station and in between his father and the accused and friends, there were 5-7 people and that they were clearly visible and that he did not know them. But from this, an inference cannot be drawn that he had identified them. In the statement, he has categorically stated that Ram Swaroop and Krishna Kumar were present at the site of occurrence. PW/2 Inder Mal and PW, 3 Ram Swaroop have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. It is also true that in his statement PW/1 Virendra Kumar has deposed that in the report he has stated that the presence of two persons and had written `vegera' for others and the witness has explained why the word vagerass was written by him in the report. Thus, the challenge with regard to inconsistency has no merit and, we are all the opinion that the statement of this witness, PW/1 Virendra Kumar, can be relied upon and it was rightly relied upon by the learned lower Court. 18. Learned counsel has relied on Balak Ram v. State for Rajasthan ( AIR 1974 SC 2165 ; and contended on its basis that because a person is injured, may know his presence at the place of occurrence; but it was not guarantee of his truth fullness. In that case, two witnesses had bullet injuries and they were completely disbelieved with regard to five accused whom they sought to implicate. The facts of the present case are quite different. In the instant case, Virendra Kumar (PW/1) has been believed as a truthful witness by the learned trial Court and that his presence cannot be doubted at the time of occurrence. His presence has been proved by other prosecution witnesses also. 19. For appreciating the prosecution case, we may state that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out in times without number and particularly in the following cases; Beya Ganganna & Anr. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 1976 Cr. His presence has been proved by other prosecution witnesses also. 19. For appreciating the prosecution case, we may state that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out in times without number and particularly in the following cases; Beya Ganganna & Anr. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 1976 Cr. L. R. (SC) 3) ; Dharam Das v. State of U.P. (1973) (2) SCC 216) ; Molu v. State of Haryana, 1976 (4) SCC 362 ) and Kanbi Nanji Virji and ors. v. State of Gujarat ( 1970 (3) SCC 103 ) that the Court should make every effort to disintegrate from the falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff rather than to take the saky course of rejecting the entire prosecution case merely because there are some embellishment. In our opinion, all the inconsistencies or infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant are neither fatal nor do affect the real substance and the core of the prosecution case In fact, there are no inconsistencies as discussed above. For these reasons, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge in the matter of appreciation of evidence. 20. The question remains whether the testimony of Indar Mal (PW/2) should be believed or not and that when the name of Krishna Kumar was disclosed as an eye-witness why adverse inference be not taken as the prosecution has failed to produce him. The name of Inder Mai (PW/2) was not disclosed in the FIR. But, in the FIR after the names of two witnesses, Krishna Kumar and Ram Swaroop the word "vagera" was written. This indicates that Virendra Kumar was alive to this situation that there were other persons, but he was unable to name them. It was later on when the identification of the witnesses was disclosed, he named them in his statement. As regards non-production of Krishna Kumar, was may simply point out that it is within the discretion of the prosecution to examine or not to examine all the witnesses. The prosecution case was well established by production of some witnesses then there was no necessity of producing all the witnesses. In the instant case, the statement of Virendra Kumar (PW/1) is believable. He is a witness who sustained injuries and he is a natural witness. The prosecution case was well established by production of some witnesses then there was no necessity of producing all the witnesses. In the instant case, the statement of Virendra Kumar (PW/1) is believable. He is a witness who sustained injuries and he is a natural witness. Even his testimony alone is sufficient to sustain the charge of murder against the accused. His testimony is further corroborated by the statement of Ram Swaroop (PW/3). In State of UP v. Hukam Singh ( AIR 1980 SC 184 ) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that it is not necessary to multiply witnesses to prove the case. In that case, a witness who had received injuries was not examined, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it would not be fatal to the prosecution case. Thus, non-examination of Krishna Kumar does not in our opinion cast any doubt on the prosecution case. So far as examination of Indarmal (PW/2) is concerned, his name has not been mentioned in the first information report. But, merely because the name of the eye witness is not mentioned in the FIR, his testimony should not be out rightly rejected. The only requirement is the careful scrutiny of the testimony of such witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge after fully considering the evidence arrived at a finding that the prosecution has proved its case and the testimony of PW/2 Indarmal has been relied upon for the purpose of corroboration. This witness had no axe to grind against the accused. Ram Swaroop PW/3 is said to be an interested witness and it was contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that his testimony should not be believed. But, simply because a person is inimical or interested, his testimony cannot be excluded. His evidence will require careful scrutiny. We have carefully gone through the statement of Ram Swaroop and we find no reason to disbelieve his testimony. Short of a few contradictions or discrepencies here and there the evidence is clearly consistent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prahlad v. State of Maharashtra 1981 (Supp ) SCC 26 ) has laid down the proposition that true rule of careful scrutiny applies only to inimical or interested witnesses, but not to independent witnesses. Even in the case of interested witnesses, the rule of scrutiny is merely rule of caution, rather than rule of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prahlad v. State of Maharashtra 1981 (Supp ) SCC 26 ) has laid down the proposition that true rule of careful scrutiny applies only to inimical or interested witnesses, but not to independent witnesses. Even in the case of interested witnesses, the rule of scrutiny is merely rule of caution, rather than rule of law. Thus, after appreciating the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant we are convinced that the finding arrived at by the learned lower Court is correct. The based on the testimony of PW/1 Virendra Kumar and there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. The entire prosecution case stands proved on the testimony of Virendra Kumar PW/1 His testimony is further corroborated and supported by the testimony of Ram Swaroop and Indarmal. The prosecution case is possessed of ring of truth. It cannot be disbelieved merely because of a few minor discrepencies or contradictions here and there PW/1 Virendra Kumar has deposed that when he along with his father was proceeding towards the compartment, he heard the bang of bullet fire from the rear side and on hearing the sound he turned back side and saw Prem Chand accused-appellant firing built on his father and before him two bullets were shot towards his father by Prem Chand. He has further deposed that all the bullets were fired on the back of his father. He has also deposed that his father fell down and before he could catch hold of Prem Chand he got bullet, but soon after he caught his arm. He has also deposed that when he got bullet. Prem Chand was in front of him. PW/2 Indarmal has also deposed that accused Prem Chand opened two or three fires and after it Virendra Kumar tried to catch hold of the accused Prem Chand and in doing so Virendra Kumar got shot in his hand. He has further deposed that Gopi Raman fell on the platform after getting three-four shots. Ram Swaroop PW/3 has also deposed that Prem Chand fired shot on Gopi Raman. He has also deposed that he was standing opposite the train compartment when accused Prem Chand fired on Gopi Raman. He has also deposed that Prem Chand opened fire on Virendra Kumar also. Ram Swaroop PW/3 has also deposed that Prem Chand fired shot on Gopi Raman. He has also deposed that he was standing opposite the train compartment when accused Prem Chand fired on Gopi Raman. He has also deposed that Prem Chand opened fire on Virendra Kumar also. In this way, the finding of the learned Court below is, thus, not assailable being based on proper legal evidence and adopt the same. Thus, there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant. 21. As regards submission with respect to ground No. 5 that the seizure of weapon of offence was palpably untenable and against law and the Article 14 pistol recovered was not in working order. It is true that Rameshwar Lal PW/1 has stated the it Article 14 pistol was the same which was recovered at the time of personal search of the accused vide Ex. P/15 and the pistol which was recovered was in working condition. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. New Delhi shows that "the pistol marked A/1 of parcel No. 13 is not in working order in its present condition". It is also true that the empties that had been seized were not fired from it. We do not want to go into this matter as the prosecution case has not been built up on the ground of recovery of the pistol. The pistol/revolver was recovered at the time of personal search of the accused, and it may be possible that the accused might have put it there just to give dodge to the prosecution. As the conviction has not been based on the recovery of the pistol, this argument is not sustainable. 22. We are therefore, satisfied that there is no meat in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******