S.S. BYAS, J.—By his judgment dated January 7, 1985 the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar convicted accused Shersingh Gurjantsingh, Darshan Singh and Mahendra Singh under section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. By the same judgment, accused Shersingh was further convicted under section 302, I.P.C. and under section 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 200/- and one years rigorous imprisonment respectively on these two counts. 2. The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 9.00 p.m. on September 20, 1983 in village Sunderpura P.S. Sadulsahar district Sri Ganganagar, in which two persons Gendasingh (aged about 65 years) and his son Kashmirsingh (aged about 35 years) were put to death by the accused with gun and the Gandasies. Kashmirsingh was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. 3. The accused arc also residents of village Sunderpura. Accused Gurjant Singh is the son of accused Shersingh while the remaining two Darshansingh and Mahendrasingh are said to be their close associates. There was close relationship between the deceased-victims and the accused Shersingh and Gurjantsingh. The father of accused Shersingh was the real brother of the father of the deceased-victim Gendasingh. Shersingh and Gendasingh were, thus, the first cousins. PW 3 Sukhjeet Kaur is the widow of the deceased Kashmirsingh while pw 4 Kala-singh is the domestic servant of their family. Their houses are situate in the same street of the village as shown in site plan Ex. P. 4. There is only one house in between the houses of the deceased-victims and the accused Shersingh. There are two gates in the house of accused Shersingh, one facing the East and the other facing the South. The Southern gate, shown by mark C in site plan Ex. P 4, is smaller than the Eastern gate. There is no dispute between the parties as regards these facts. 4. Stated in succinct, the prosecution case is that at about 8.00 p. m. on September 19, 1983,, the deceased Kashmirsingh told his wife Mst. Sukhjeet Kaur (PW 3) that a scuffle and an exchange of abuses had taken place between him and accused Gurjantsingh on that day. His father Gendasingh was not there in the village. 4. Stated in succinct, the prosecution case is that at about 8.00 p. m. on September 19, 1983,, the deceased Kashmirsingh told his wife Mst. Sukhjeet Kaur (PW 3) that a scuffle and an exchange of abuses had taken place between him and accused Gurjantsingh on that day. His father Gendasingh was not there in the village. He had gone to village Bahama Tehsil Muktsar in Punjab. It is alleged that due to this scuffle, Kashmirsingh became apprehensive and he sent PW 6 Jeetsingh to Bahama to bring his father Gendasingh to Sunderpura. Jeetsingh went to village Bahama and brought Gendasingh with him to village Sunderpura. Kashmirsingh apprised his father Gendasingh of his scuffle with accused Gurjant Singh. Gendasingh told him that he would go to Gurjant Singhs father Shersingh to lodge protest and reprimand him. Gendasingh thereafter had a bath, took his meals and left his house to go to accused Shersingh. It was 8. 40 p. m. by then. A little while later, Sukhjeet Kaur, her husband Kashmirsingh and their servant Kalasingh heard some noise in the side of the small gate of accused Shersinghs house. These three persons rushed to that side and found Gendasingh standing in the mid of the street running out-side the Southern gate of the house of accused Shersingh. The four accused Shersingh, Gurjantsingh, Mahendra Singh and Darshansingh were also standing there. Accused Shersingh had a gun with him while the remaining three had Gandasies with them. Gendasingh told accused Shersingh to treat his son Kashmirsingh as his own son. Accused Shersingh there upon told Gendasingh to come near (Ude Aao). Gendasingh and Kashmirsingh went towards the accused. Accused Shersingh fired his gun at Kashmirsingh, which hit him on the back in the left scapular region. Kashmirsingh fell down. Accused Gurjantsingh and Mahendrasingh started landing blows to Gendasingh with their Gandasies. Gendasingh also fell down. Accused Darshansingh struck blows to Kashmirsingh with his Gandasi. Mst. Sukhjeet Kaur raised cries. Accused Shersingh threatened her that in case she advanced further, she would also be shot dead. Accused Shersingh also cried aloud that who ever in the village dared to come out of his house would also be blown out. There was profuse bleeding from the wounds of the two victims Kashmirsingh and Gendasingh and the soil became drenched with the blood of their wounds. The accused retreated in the house of accused Shersingh. Accused Shersingh also cried aloud that who ever in the village dared to come out of his house would also be blown out. There was profuse bleeding from the wounds of the two victims Kashmirsingh and Gendasingh and the soil became drenched with the blood of their wounds. The accused retreated in the house of accused Shersingh. After the accused had retired, Sukhjeet Kaur went to Gendasingh and Kashmirsingh and found that they were already dead. She and Kalasingh came to her house. She sent Kalasingh to bring PW 5 Ramsingh, who was a Member of the Gram Panchayat. Ramsingh came to her house. She apprised him of the incident and requested him to accompany her to go to the Police Station. Ramsingh declined to accompany her as he got frightened. Early in the next morning, Sukhjeet Kaur managed a jeep-car from Balbirsingh and went to Police Station, Sadulsahar. She also took Kalasingh with her. She reached the police station, Sadulsahar at about 7. 00 a.m. on September 21, 1983 and verbally lodged report Ex. P. 3 of the occurrence. The police registered a case and the investigation ensued. The investigation was conducted by the Station House Officer Mr. Jeevan Ram (PW 7). He recorded the statements of Sukhjeet Kaur and Kalasingh. Thereafter he took with him Dr. Kailash Nayak (PW 1)-the then Medical Officer Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Sadulsahar and arrived at the site of occurrence at about 10. 00 a. m. He inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex. P4 and the site inspection note Ex. P. 4-A. He found the dead bodies of the two victims lying in the street, just out-side the houses of accused Shersingh and Gurjantsingh. He prepared the inquest reports of the dead-bodies. He also lifted the blood-stained soil from the place of occurrence and sealed it. He found some broken pieces of Gandali lying near the dead-body of Gendasingh. These broken pieces were also seized and sealed. 5. The medico-legal autopsy of the victims dead-bodies were conducted on the spot by Dr. Kailash Nayak at about 1. 00 p. m. on the same day. He noticed the following injuries on the dead body of Gendasingh:- External 1. These broken pieces were also seized and sealed. 5. The medico-legal autopsy of the victims dead-bodies were conducted on the spot by Dr. Kailash Nayak at about 1. 00 p. m. on the same day. He noticed the following injuries on the dead body of Gendasingh:- External 1. There was an incised wound of 15 c. m. x 4 c. m. deep to cranial cavity present on left temporal (part-of-) frontal region, preauricular region and left mandible) underlying bones were fractured in many pieces. Brain matter alongwith its membranes were severally damaged and huge amount of blood and brain matter coming out. 2. There was incised wound of 15 c. m. x 3 1/2 c. m. deep to cranial cavity present on left parietal (part of temporal region, mastoid region, left pinna) underlying bones were fractured in many pieces, brain matter and membranes were severely damaged. 3. There was incised wound of 9 c. m. x 3 c. m. deep to cranial cavity present in post auricular region extending upto occipital bone underlying bones were fractured and brain matter alongwith its membranes severely damaged. 4. There was crushed lacerated wound of 22 c. m. x 18 c. m. (involving left supraclavicular region, mammary region, infromammary region, upper part of upper arm, exillary region, scapular region, posteriorly, shoulder joint). There was dislocation of left shoulder joint and fracture of humorous bone on left side muscles and blood vessels were severely damaged. 5. There was incised wound of 7 c. m. x 3 c. m. deep to muscle in interscapular region posteriorly more on left side. 6. There was incised wound of 4 c. m. x 2 c. m. deep to subcutanous tissue on left side of neck. 7. There was incised wound of 3 c. m. x 2 c. m. deep to subcutanous tissue on neck just above the cervical spine posteriorly. 8. There was incised wound of 5 c. m. x 1 c.m, deep to muscle right wrist. 9. There was incised wound of 2 c. m. x 1/2 c. m. deep to subcutanous tissue on left side of nose. Internal 1. Left temporal, occipital, frontal and parietal bones were found fractured. 2. Left humerous and left mandible bones were found fractured. 6. All the injuries were ante-mortem caused by some sharp-edged weapons. 9. There was incised wound of 2 c. m. x 1/2 c. m. deep to subcutanous tissue on left side of nose. Internal 1. Left temporal, occipital, frontal and parietal bones were found fractured. 2. Left humerous and left mandible bones were found fractured. 6. All the injuries were ante-mortem caused by some sharp-edged weapons. The doctor was of the opinion that the cause of death, of Gendasingh was due to severe injury to brain. The post-mortem examination report prepared by him is Ex. P 1. 7. The doctor found the following injuries on the bead body of Kashmir-Singh.- 1. Firearm wounds — There were found wounds of entrance each of 1/2" in diameter lying near to each other circular, lacerated with inverted edges present in left scapular region posteriorly each running upwards forward, medially damaging left lung with pleura pericardium and heart, underlying bones, ribs were fractured. Thoracic cavity full of clotted and semi-clotted blood. Heart and left lung pleura, pericardium were badly damaged, and a pallet recovered from thoracic cavity during post-mortem. There was no blackening and tattooing over the entry wounds. 2. Firearm wound (exit)—There was lacerated wound 10x6 c.m. with irregular everted margins which were ragged to its edges involving injury on clavicular mammary region on left side of chest conteriorly underlying bones were fractured, pleura on left side Jungs, pericardium heart were lacerated severely, underlying bones were fractured left sided thoracic vessels muscles were also damaged. Thoracic cavity was full of blood, which was clotted and semi - clotted. 3. Incised wound 14 c.m. x 2 cm deep to muscles present on auricular region involving part of pinna, temporal region, part of frontal region on left side. 4. Incised wound 10 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. deep to subcutaneous tissue present over interscapular region posteriorly. Internal 1. Ribs No. 2 to 7 and left scapular bones were found fractured. The doctor also found a pallet lodged in the thoracic cavity. He took it out and sealed it. The injuries found on the dead body of Kashmirsingh were ante mortem. Injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by some firearm while injuries No. 3 and 4 were caused by some sharp - edged weapon. Injury No. 1 was stated to be the entry wound while injury No. 2 was stated to be the exit wound caused by the gun-shot. Injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by some firearm while injuries No. 3 and 4 were caused by some sharp - edged weapon. Injury No. 1 was stated to be the entry wound while injury No. 2 was stated to be the exit wound caused by the gun-shot. The doctor was of the opinion that the cause of death of Kashmirsingh was haemorrhage and shock as a result of severe injury (fire-arm) to heart and lung. The post-mortem examination report prepared by him is EX. P2. The blood stained clothes of the deceased-victims, including the shirt (Article 4) of Kashmirsingh, were seized and sealed. The accused persons were arrested on September 24, 1983. In consequence of the information furnished by accused Shersingh one 12 bore D.B.B.L. gun (Article 10) an empty cartridge case and the gun - licence were recovered. In consequence of the information furnished by accused Gurjantsingh, Mahendrasingh and Darshansingh. Gandasies (Article 1,2 and 3) and their wearing clothes were recovered. The recovered articles were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for examination. The reports received from there are EX. P. 31 and EX. P. 32. On the completion of investigation the police presented a challan against the appellants in the court of Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Shri Ganganagar, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under section 302/34, I.P.C. against all of them. Charges under section 302 I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act were also framed against accused Shersingh. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They denounced the whole prosecution story as a false and fabricated piece of concoction and claimed absolute innocence. In support of its case the prosecution examined ten witnesses and filed some documents. C.W. 1 Mr. P.S. Manocha the Assistant Director (Ballistic) State Forensic Laboratory, Jaipur was examined as a court witness. No evidence adduced in defence. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, found the charges duly proved against the accused persons. They were consequently convicted and sentenced, as mentioned at the very out-set. Aggrieved, the accused have come - up in appeal to challenge their conviction. 8. We have heard Mr. A.N. Mulla the Senior Advocate and Mr. M. L. Garg on behalf of the appellants, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. They were consequently convicted and sentenced, as mentioned at the very out-set. Aggrieved, the accused have come - up in appeal to challenge their conviction. 8. We have heard Mr. A.N. Mulla the Senior Advocate and Mr. M. L. Garg on behalf of the appellants, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Sardar Karnelsingh for the complainant. 9. Before dealing with the contention raised at the Bar, it would be useful to first notice the findings recorded by the trial court on vital issues. They are as under:— 1. the First Information Report Ex. P. 3 is a post investigation and medico oriented document. 2. the opinion of PW 1 Dr. Nayak, who conducted the medico-legal autopsy, that injury No, 1 of the deceased Kashmirsingh was the entry wound and injury No. 2 was the exit wound of the gun - shot is erroneous in view of the evidence of the Ballistic Expert Mr. Manocha (CW 1). The ballistic evidence is quite contrary. It is that the injury No. 2 was the entry wound and injury No.3 was the exit wound of the gun-shot. 3. the two eye witnesses PW 3 Mst Sukhjeet Kaur and PW 4 Kalasingh had not seen the actual incident. Their claim to have seen the appellants firing the gun and landing blows to the victims by Gandasies is totally false. 4. the two eye witnesses had only seen the appellants retreating with their weapons to the house of accused Shersingh through the small gate shown by mark C in site plan EX. P. 4. 5. the appellants were not traceable after the incident and could be arrested only on September 24, 1983. They remained absconding during this interval; and 6. the recovery of the gun and the Gandasies, and the Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex. P. 31 have no evidentiary value. 10. The reasons advanced by the trial court for disbelieving the claim of the eye witnesses to have seen the appellants firing the gun and landing the blows with Gandasies to the deceased victims are:— 1. In the F.I.R. Ex. P. 3, lodged by PW 3 Mst. Sukhjeet kaur and in her police statement Ex. D 1, she stated that the gun-shot hit the deceased Kashmirsingh in his back. The same version was stated in his police statement Ex. D2 by PW 4 Kalasingh. In the F.I.R. Ex. P. 3, lodged by PW 3 Mst. Sukhjeet kaur and in her police statement Ex. D 1, she stated that the gun-shot hit the deceased Kashmirsingh in his back. The same version was stated in his police statement Ex. D2 by PW 4 Kalasingh. Injury No. 1, vide post - mortem examination report Ex. D 2, was on back. According to the eye witnesses, injury No. 1 was the entry wound cause by the gun-shot. This version given in Ex. P. 3, Ex. D 1 and Ex. D 2 was so stated because in the post-mortem examination report Ex. P. 2, injury No. 1 was stated to be the entry wound and injury No.2 was stated to be the exit wound. When the Ballistic Experts report Ex. P. 32 was received during trial on March 6, 1984, it was realised that the opinion expressed in the post-mortem examination report Ex. P2 by the doctor was erroneous. It was injury No. 2 which was the entry wound and injury No. 1 was the exit wound. The two eye witnesses, who were examined during trial on May 23, 1984 (after the receipt of the report Ex. P. 32) gave up the version given by them in Ex. P. 3, Ex. D 1 and Ex. D2. They came out altogether with a new and improved version that the gun shot hit the victim Kashmirsingh in the chest. This improvement was made to fit-in with the opinion of the Ballistic Expert. The improvement is significant and destroys the credibility of the eye witnesses, the main obstratum of their evidence and the core of the prosecution case. 2. The eye witnesses gave an omnibus account of the incident. They simply stated that accused Gurjant Singh and Mahendra Singh struck blows to the deceased Gendasingh and accused Darshansingh struck blows to the deceased Kashmirsingh with their Gandasies. But they did not state on which part of their bodies the injuries were inflicted. According to the eye witnesses, the electric bulb was lightening and it was a full moon lit night when the incident took place. They claimed to have seen the incident from a close distance, standing near the deceased victims. They were, therefore, bound to observe atleast the main parts of the victims dead bodies where the blows of the Gandasies were struck. 3. They claimed to have seen the incident from a close distance, standing near the deceased victims. They were, therefore, bound to observe atleast the main parts of the victims dead bodies where the blows of the Gandasies were struck. 3. Injury No. 4 of the deceased Gendasingh was extensive being 20 c.m. x 18 c.m. As per medical evidence, it was caused by blunt weapon and was the result of more than one blow. None of the appellants is stated to have a lathi or any other blunt weapon. This injury could not be caused by the blunt side of the Gandasies because Gandasies had nut bolts in their blunt side. No marks or impessions of the nut and bolts were found in injury No. 4. The opinion of Dr. Nayak (PW 1) was also to the effect that this injury No. 4 could not be caused by the blunt sides of the Gandasies Articles 1, 2 and 3. 4 The deceased Gendasingh took Kundali (walking stick fitted with iron nail at the bottom) when he left the house to go to the house of accused Shersingh. The two broken pieces of this Kundali (Article 9( were found lying on the spot by the investigating officer when he inspected the site. They were seized and sealed. The eye witnesses have not stated how this Kundali was used and got broken; and 5. When the investigating officer visited the spot, the dead body of Kashmirsingh was found lying at a place shown by mark A in site plan Ex. P. 4. The distance between the small gate C and the place A according to the investigating officer, was 35 feet. In the F.I.R. Ex. P. 3 and the police statements Ex. D 1 and Ex. D 2, the eye witnesses stated that accused Shersingh was standing in this small gate C and from there he fired the shot at the deceased Kashmir Singh. They thus, stated that the shot was fired from a distance of 35 feet. When the report of the Ballistic Expert was received, it was found that the shot was fired from a distance of six feet. They thus, stated that the shot was fired from a distance of 35 feet. When the report of the Ballistic Expert was received, it was found that the shot was fired from a distance of six feet. The eye witnesses gave up this version during trial and again introduced an improvement that accused Shersingh was standing out side in the street nearly at a distance of one KARAM from the small gate C. They also introduced a further improvement that the deceased Kashmirsingh, when hit by the gunshot, did not fall down at that spot but walked a distance of 1-1/2 KARAMS and thereafter fell down. Thus, attempts were again made by the eye witnesses to make their evidence fit-in with the opinion of the Ballistic Expert. 11. The learned Sessions Judge, however, took the view that since the two eye witnesses had seen the appellants retreating with their weapons in the house of accused Shersingh just after the occurrence and the appellants remained absconding nearly for four days after the incident, these facts were sufficient to bring the charges at the door-steps of the appellants. On these two sets of evidence, he held the charges duly proved against them. 12. In view of the findings recorded by the trial Court, Mr. Mulla had an easy task in assailing the conviction of the appellants. It was contended by him that the finding of the Sessions Judge that though the eye witnesses had not seen the appellants firing the gun or landing blows to the deceased-victims with Gandasies, they had atleast seen the appellants retreating in the house of accused Shersingh through the small gate C with their weapons just after the incident, is erroneous and is purely conjectural and surmisical. It was argued that in case the two eye witnesses had not seen the actual incident, there was no extra material on record to show that they had atleast seen the appellants retreating in the house of accused Shersingh. It was submitted that the trial Court had the powers to reject a part of the testimony of the eye witnesses and to accept the residue. But before the residue could be accepted, there must be extra material and some corroboration to that effect. It was submitted that the trial Court had the powers to reject a part of the testimony of the eye witnesses and to accept the residue. But before the residue could be accepted, there must be extra material and some corroboration to that effect. There was no extra material or corroboration on the basis of which it can be held that the eye witnesses had atleast seen the appellants retreating in the house of accused Shersingh with their weapons. It was contended that the appellants were arrested on September 24, 1983 in the field of accused Shersingh. They never absconded after the incident. The failure of the police to trace them out earlier does not lead to the inference that they were absconding. Moreover, the absconding of the accused in itself was not sufficient to seek the conviction of the appellants. It was argued that if the two eye witnesses stand discredited and their claim to have seen the incident is found unreliable, the mere absence of the appellants from their houses after the incident discloses no incriminating material against them. The conviction of the appellants is therefore, bad and unsustainable. 13. It was, on the other hand, contended by the learned Public Prosecutor and Sardar Karnelsingh that the two eye witnesses had in fact seen the whole of the incident from its commencement to the end. The learned Sessions Judge was not right in taking the view that they had not seen the incident and had only seen the appellants retreating in the house of accused Shersingh after the incident. It was argued and argued at length that both the eye witnesses had given a full and complete picture of the incident and there were no good or cogent reasons to discredit their version. They had no enmity against the appellants and they had no reasons to falsely implicate them. The appellants have assigned no reasons for their false implication. It was submitted that this court, sitting in appeal against conviction, has powers to re-appreciate the evidence and to reverse the finding of the trial Court and to maintain the conviction after a re-appraisal of the entire evidence. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. 14. Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the powers of the appellate Court in respect of an appeal against conviction or acquittal. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. 14. Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the powers of the appellate Court in respect of an appeal against conviction or acquittal. Clause (b) speaks about the powers in an appeal against the conviction. Sub-clause (ii) speaks about the powers of the appellate Court to alter or maintain the finding. Under this section this Court, has, thus, ample powers to make a re-appraisal of the entire evidence and to alter the finding of the trial Court. 15. The pertinent question arising for our deliberation is whether the two eye witnesses PW. 3 Mst. Sukhjeet Kaur and P.W. 4 Kalasingh had seen the incident and their claim to have seen the incident was wrongly disbelieved or dismissed by the Court below. It would be proper to briefly read their evidence. 16. P.W. 3 Mst. Sukhjeet Kaur is the widow of the deceased victim Kash-mirsingh. She stated that in the evening preceding the day of the incident, her husband told her that a scuffle and exchange of hot words had taken place between him and accused Gurjant Singh. Her father-in-law (deceased Gendasingh) was not there. Re had gone to village Bahama in Muktsar Tehsil in Punjab. Her husband sent PW 6 Jeetsingh to Bahama to bring back her father-in-law to village Sunderpura. Jeetsingh went to Bahama and brought Gendasingh back in the evening of the day of the incident. Her husband told Gendasingh about the scuffle and exchange of abuses. Her father-in-law told that he would go to accused Shersingh to reprimand and lodge protest. Her father-in-law thereafter took a bath and had meals. He then left the house to go to the house of accused Shersingh. It was 9.00 p.m. by then. A little while later, she and her husband heard the noise raised from the side of the houses of accused Shersingh and Gurjantsingh. Hearing the noise, she, her husband Kashmirsingh and their servant Kalasingh (PW 4) went towards the house of accused Shersingh. She saw that her father-in-law Gendasingh was standing in the street situate outside the small gate C of the house of accused Shersingh. All the four appellants were also standing there. Hearing the noise, she, her husband Kashmirsingh and their servant Kalasingh (PW 4) went towards the house of accused Shersingh. She saw that her father-in-law Gendasingh was standing in the street situate outside the small gate C of the house of accused Shersingh. All the four appellants were also standing there. Accused Shersingh had a gun while the remaining three Gurjantsingh, Darshansingh and Mahendrasingh had Gandasies Her father-in-law Gendasingh asked accused Shersingh to treat his son (Kashmirsingh) as his own son as he lives alone in the village. Accused Shersingh thereupon asked Gendasingh to come nearer. Upon this, Gendasingh and Kashmirsingh went towards the appellants. Accused Shersingh fired a shot at Kashmirsingh which hit him on his chest. Kashmirsingh, due to the gun shot, fell down. Accused Darshansingh struck blows to Kashmirsingh with his Gandasi. Accused Gurjantsingh and Mahendrasingh struck blows to Gendasingh with their Gandasies. Gendasingh also fell down. She started weeping and raised cries. Accused Shersingh told her that in case she came nearer, she would also be shot dead. Accused Shersingh also cried a loud that who-ever in the village came out of his house would also be-blown out. The appellants thereafter retreated in the house of accused Shersingh. She went to Gendasingh and Kashmirsingh and found that they were dead. She and Kalasingh returned to her house. She sent Kalasingh to bring Ramsingh (P.W. 5) a Member of the Panchayat. Ramsingh came to her house and she narrated the whole incident to him. She requested him to take her to police station to lodge a report, but Ramsingh declined to accompany her as he got frightened. Next-day, she managed a jeep from Balbirsingh and went to police station, Sadulsahar with Kalasingh. There she lodged a report of the occurrence. The same version was given by P.W. 4 Kalasingh more or less in the same words, hardly with any departure. 17. Normally the testimony of a witness given on oath is presumed to be true and it lies on the party challenging that testimony to show that the witness is not credit worthy and that his testimony should not be accepted. The usual presumption is that the testimony given on oath is true unless it has been successfully shattered and shaken in cross examination. Whether the testimony of a witness has been successfully shattered or shaken, the testimony should be scrutinised both intrinsically and extrinsically. 18. The usual presumption is that the testimony given on oath is true unless it has been successfully shattered and shaken in cross examination. Whether the testimony of a witness has been successfully shattered or shaken, the testimony should be scrutinised both intrinsically and extrinsically. 18. Both the eye witnesses have been cross-examined at length and the learned Sessions Judge had dealt with their statements exhaustively and in details. Now, there are some glaring features in the testimony of these two witnesses, which cannot be easily ignored or over-looked. The first is that the F.I.R. Ex. P.3 was lodged by the eye witness P.W. 3 Mst. Sukhjeet Kaur. She was examined by the investigating officer just after the first information report was lodged. Her statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. is Ex. D.l. Kalasingh (PW 4) was also examined by police and his statement is Ex.D.2. The investigating officer Jiwan Ram (PW 7) has stated that what was deposed to him by these two witnesses was correctly and faithfully reduced into writing in Ex.P.3, Ex.D.l and Ex. D.2. Nothing was added or subtracted by him. These three documents, thus, stand proved. Now, in F.I.R. (Fx.P.3) and in her police statement Ex.D.l, she stated that when the accused Shersingh pointed his gun towards her husband Kashmirsingh, Kashmirsingh turned back to run away. Accused Shersingh fired the gun which hit Kashmirsingh on his back. Kashmir Singh fell down then and there on the spot. These portions in Ex.P.3 are Ka.2 to Ka.3 and Ka.3 to Ka.4. This portion in Ex.D.l is Ka to Ka. 1 and Ka.l to Ka. 2. This part of the statement in Ex.D.2 of PW 4 Kalasingh is Ka-2 to Ka-3 and Ka-3 to Ka-4. Thus, the version given in the F.I.R. and in the police statements by these two witnesses is that the gun shot hit Kashmirsingh on his back. Injury No. 1, mentioned in the post-mortem report Ex.P.2 was, thus, the entry wound, according to these two witnesses. When the report Ex. P. 32 of the Ballistic Expert was received on March 6, 1984, it was realised that injury No. 1 was not the entry wound but that it was the exit wound. These two witnesses then changed the version when they were examined during trial on May 23, 1984, and introduced altogether a new improvement that the gun shot hit Kashmirsingh on his chest. These two witnesses then changed the version when they were examined during trial on May 23, 1984, and introduced altogether a new improvement that the gun shot hit Kashmirsingh on his chest. This improvement was made with the oblique motive to Sit in with the opinion of the Ballistic Expert expressed by him in Ex. P. 32. When both these witnesses were asked to explain these contradictions, instead of furnishing any explanation they merely denied that they had stated the aforesaid portions in Ex. P. 3 or Ex. D. 1 or Ex. D. 2. This improvement is significant and cannot be lightly brushed aside or ignored from consideration. 19. There was a cogent reason for the two eye witnesses to have stated in Ex P. 3, Ex. D. 1 and Ex. D. 2 that the gun shot had hit Kashmirsingh on his back. The post-mortem examination was conducted on the spot, in the postmortem examination report (Ex. P. D, PW 1 Dr. Nayak stated that injury No. 1 was the entry wound It appears that the F. I. R. (Ex. P. 3) was prepared and the statements Ex. D. 1 and Ex. D. 2 were given by these two eye witnesses to fit-in with the opinion of Dr. Nayak (PW 1). But when the opinion of the Ballistic Expert, these two eye witnesses made a departure from their earlier statements EX. P. 3, Ex. D. 1 and Ex.D. 2 and substituted altogether another version of the incident that the shot had hit the victim Kashmirsingh on his chest. This substitution and improvement speak heavily against these two eye witnesses and give an impression that they had changed their version from stage to stage as and when the exigencies required, irrespective of the truth. That gives an impression that they had not really seen the incident and stated different versions at different stages, first to fit in with the medical opinion and then, later on, to fit-in with the opinion of the Ballistic Expert. When the witness changes one version and substitutes it by another version as the exigencies require, the impression is that he is a witness on whom no reliance for any purpose can be placed. The testimony of such a witness fails to inspire confidence. 20. When the witness changes one version and substitutes it by another version as the exigencies require, the impression is that he is a witness on whom no reliance for any purpose can be placed. The testimony of such a witness fails to inspire confidence. 20. The F. I. R. in a criminal case has enormous importance and is generally utilized for counter-checks and balances for testing or evaluating the evidence. One of the objects of section 154, Cr.P.C. relating to the recording of the first information report is to safeguard the accused against subsequent variations, additions or embellishments or improvements. If at the trial a story is given against the alleged offender which differs in material particulars from the one given in the first information report, such a story given during trial is generally viewed with grave suspicion. The inconsistency between the statement in the F. I. R. and the evidence of the informant, who lodges it, during trial discredits the evidence of the informant. 21. The learned Public Prosecutor and Sardar Karnel Singh made strenuous efforts to persuade us that the shot hit Kashmirsingh on his back was intro-duced in Ex. P. 3, Ex. D. 1 and Ex. D. 2 by these eye witnesses due to their innocence and low understanding. It was argued that they are rustic villagers and minute observations cannot be expected from them. We should not, therefore, give undue importance to these contradictions. We are unable to subscribe this view. The F. J. R. (Ex. P. 3) is not an innocent document. Since in the postmortem examination report (Ex. P. 2) it was mentioned that the gun shot injury on the back of Kashmirsingh was the entry wound, this fact was introduced in the F. I. R. EX. P. 3 to fit-in with the medical evidence. Subsequently when it was realised on the receipt of the Ballistic Experts report EX. P. 32 that injury No. 1 on the back was the exit wound and not the entry wound, the eye witnesses changed the version and improved their earlier version that the gun shot hit Kashmirsingh on the chest. This type of improvement, which changes the main version of the incident, cannot be considered as innocent or innocuous. P. 32 that injury No. 1 on the back was the exit wound and not the entry wound, the eye witnesses changed the version and improved their earlier version that the gun shot hit Kashmirsingh on the chest. This type of improvement, which changes the main version of the incident, cannot be considered as innocent or innocuous. This substitution relating to gun shot injury amounts to material contradiction within the meaning of section 162, Cr.P.C. and is an obvious improvement with the avowed and deliberate purpose to fit-in with the evidence of the Ballistic Expert. If the version of a prosecution witness in the Court is inconsistent with his version before the police, reliance and faith cannot be pinned on him and conviction cannot be maintained on such evidence. 22. The next glaring feature of the case is that the two eye witnesses gave only an omnibus account of the incident. They simply stated that accused Gurjantsingh and Mahendrasingh struck blows to the deceased Gendasingh with their Gandasies. But both of them did not state as to on which part of his body the injuries were inflicted. Of course, minor details relating to infliction of injuries as to which of the accused caused which of the particular injury cannot be expected from them, but they are expected to state the broad features of the actual landing of the blows. According to eye witnesses, electric bulb was burning and was diffusing the light and it was a full-moon-lit night when the incident took place. They also stated to have seen the incident from a close distance when they were standing with the deceased-victims. They were, therefore, bound to observe atleast the main parts of the deceased Gendasinghs body where the blows of Gandasies were struck. These broad features are neither therein the F.I.R. (EX. P 3) nor in the statements of these two witnesses given at the trial stage. The omnibus statement that accused Gurjantsingh and Mahendrasingh struck blows to Gendasingh with their Gandasies is not enough. The omnibus statements create an impression that they had not really seen the incident. 23. The next glaring feature is that injury No. 4 of the deceased Genda-Singh was a lacerated wound 20 c. m. x 18 c. m. on clavicular region caused by some blunt weapon. The omnibus statements create an impression that they had not really seen the incident. 23. The next glaring feature is that injury No. 4 of the deceased Genda-Singh was a lacerated wound 20 c. m. x 18 c. m. on clavicular region caused by some blunt weapon. None of the eye witnesses had stated that any of the appellants had a lathi or any other blunt weapon, with which injury No. 4 to Gendasingh was caused. PW 1 Dr. Nayak, in his cross-examination, admitted that this injury No. 4 of Gendasingh could not be caused with the blunt side of Gendasies Articles 1, 2, and 3 for the simple reason that the reverse side had nuts and bolts. In case injury No. 4 was inflicted by the reverse side of the Gandasies, the marks and impressions of the nuts and bolts should there be in injury No. 4. No marks or impressions of nuts and bolts were found in this injury PW 1 Dr. Nayak stated that that injury No. 4 could be caused by butt of the gun and it was the result of more than one blow. None of the two eye witnesses stated that accused Shersingh caused any injury to Gendasingh except firing the gun. We are, therefore, not in a position to say as to how injury No. 4 was caused to deceased Gendasingh. This matter assumes importance because injury No. 4 was an extensive wound 20 c m. x 18 c. m. and was the result of more than one blow. Since the eye witnesses have claimed to have seen the entire incident, it was expected from them to state and explain as to how injury No. 4 was caused to the deceased Gendasingh. This infirmity again persuades us to say that the two eye witnesses had not really seen the incident. 24. There is yet another glaring feature and that is in respect of the broken pieces (Article 9) of the Kundali. According to eye witnesses, Gendasingh left the house with the Kundali in his hand which he used as a leaning stick in walking. The two broken pieces (Article 9) of the Kundali were found on the spot by the investigating officer and they were seized and sealed. The eye witnesses have not stated how this Kundali was used and got broken. The two broken pieces (Article 9) of the Kundali were found on the spot by the investigating officer and they were seized and sealed. The eye witnesses have not stated how this Kundali was used and got broken. The breaking of Kundalt in two pieces is expected to have been seen by the eye witnesses. But both are silent on this important feature of the prosecution case. Their inability to state as to how Kundali got broken again creates an impression that they had not really seen the incident. 25. The last glaring feature relates to the distance from which gun was fired by accused Shersingh. When the investigating officer Jiwan Ram (PW 7) inspected the site, at about 10. 00 a.m. on September 21, 1983, he found the dead body of deceased Kashmirsingh lying at place A and the dead body of Gendasingh lying at place B in the street, as shown in site plan EX.P 4. The distance between the place A and the small gate C of the house of accused Shersingh, as mentioned in the site inspection memo EX.P4 and as stated by the investigating officer Jiwan Ram (PW 7), is thirty-five feet. In the F.I.R. (EX.P 3) and the police statements EX. D 1 and EX.D 2, it was stated by the eye witnesses that accused Shersingh was standing in the small gate C of his house and he fired the gun from there, that is, when he was standing in the small gate. When the Ballistic Experts report EX.P 32 was received, it was again realised that the gun was fired from a distance of not more than six feet in any case because blackening and gun powder marks were found on the front of the victims (Kashmirsinghs) shirt. Faced with this difficult situation, the eye witnesses again took a turn and introduced an improvement that accused Shersingh came out of the small gate of his house and stood at a distance of one KARAM from that small gate and from there he fired the gun. They also introduced another improvement that Kashmirsingh, when hit by the gun shot, did not fall down there but that he walked a distance of 1-1/2 KARAMS and thereafter fell down. When she was confronted with the portion Ka-3 to Ka-4 in EX.P.3, Mst. They also introduced another improvement that Kashmirsingh, when hit by the gun shot, did not fall down there but that he walked a distance of 1-1/2 KARAMS and thereafter fell down. When she was confronted with the portion Ka-3 to Ka-4 in EX.P.3, Mst. Sukhjeet Kaur could furnish no explanation except that she did not dictate the aforesaid portion in the F.I.R. (EX. P 3). The same is the state of affairs with PW 4 Kalasingh. He was confronted with portion Ka-3 to Ka-4 in his police statement EX. D.2. He could, also, furnish no explanation. Both these witnesses, thus, made an attempt to minimize the distance from which the gun was fired. This departure from the version given in EX.P 3, EX.D 1 and EX.D 2 was made with a sinister motive to fit-in their evidence with the opinion of the Ballistic Expert. 26. It is interesting to notice that common, similar and identical mistakes improvements and changed versions are there in the testimony of the eye witnesses. The unanimity between them in committing the same mistakes, ommi-ssions and contradictions, and in making improvements strongly suggests that they are not honest and innocent witnesses. While evaluating the evidence of these two eye witnesses, it should not be forgotten that one of them is the widow and daughter-in-law of the deceased-victims and improvements etc. made by them lead to the irresistible conclusion that they had acted in a concert in pursuance to well-knit pre-planned design. 27. It is true that minor discrepancies and omissions or improvements should not be given undue importance. But at the same time, when discrepancies, omissions, contradictions and improvements pile-up and are on vital issues, they gain importance and cast serious doubts on the veracity of the witnesses. In evaluating discrepancies, contradictions, omissions and improvements, it should be seen whether they are honest and innocent or they have been deliberately planted for sinister objectives. Here in the instant case, as discussed above, the discrepancies, contradictions, omissions and improvements do not appear to be honest or innocent. They have been deliberately planted by the eye witnesses with the oblique motives, first to fit-in the incident with the medical opinion and later on to fit-in with the opinion of the Ballistic Expert. Here in the instant case, as discussed above, the discrepancies, contradictions, omissions and improvements do not appear to be honest or innocent. They have been deliberately planted by the eye witnesses with the oblique motives, first to fit-in the incident with the medical opinion and later on to fit-in with the opinion of the Ballistic Expert. We are, therefore, of the opinion that for the reasons enumerated above, the claim of the two eye witnesses that they had seen the incident is false. The learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in putting no reliance on the testimony of these two witnesses and rightly dismissed their assertion that they had seen the incident. 28. There are some other reasons, also, which persuade us that these two eye witnesses had not seen the incident. The manner in which the incident took place in highly unnatural. According to the eye witnesses, when the deceased Gendasingh asked accused Shersingh to treat his son (Kashmirsingh) as his own son, accused Shersingh asked Gendasingh to come nearer ("OORE AAVO"). When Gendasingh moved to go further, accused Shersingh fired the gun at Kashmirsingh. It does not commend to reason that accused Sher Singh would fire the gun when there was no cause for him to do so. That again constitutes an infirmity in the prosecution case. There is discordance between the evidence of Dr. Nayak (PW 1) and the evidence of the Ballistic Expert. Mr. Manocha (CW 1). According to Dr. Nayak, injury No. 1 on the back of deceased Kashmirsingh was the entry wound and injury No. 2 on the chest was the exit wound. The opinion of the Ballistic Expert Mr. Manocha is that it was injury No. 2 found on the chest which was the entry wound and injury No.l found on the back was the exit wound. The shirt (Article 4) of the deceased Kashmirsingh was seized and sent to the Ballistic Expert for chemical examination. CW 1 Mr. Manocha stated that the chemical examination of the shirt indicated the presence of powder-charged particles around the rat-hole (big size hole) on the front portion of the shirt. The presence of powder charged particles indicates that the hole present on the front portion of the shirt (Article 4) was the entrance hole. CW 1 Mr. Manocha stated that the chemical examination of the shirt indicated the presence of powder-charged particles around the rat-hole (big size hole) on the front portion of the shirt. The presence of powder charged particles indicates that the hole present on the front portion of the shirt (Article 4) was the entrance hole. He further stated that the gun was fired at Kashmirsingh by the culprit from a distance of six feet because the pallets entered the target en-mass forming a single hole (rathole). The opinion of CW 1 Mr. Manocha was accepted as correct before us by Mr. Mulla and the learned Public Prosecutor as well as Sardar Karnelsingh. His opinion was not at ail assailed before us. 29. In the First Information Report (EX.P. 3) and the police statements EX.D1 EX. D 2, the two eye witnesses stated that the gun shot hit Kashmir Singh on his back. Thus, the injury on the back, according to them, was the entry wound. The post-mortem examinations of the victims were conducted by Dr. Nayak on the spot. It appears that the post-mortem examinations were conducted first and the F.I.R. (EX.P 3) was prepared later on to fit in with the opinion of Dr. Nayak. Had the two eye witnesses really seen the incident there was no reason for them to state in EX.P 3, EX.D 1 and EX D 2 that the gun -shot hit the target on his back. They stated in EX.P 3, EX.D. 1 and EX.D 2 that the gun shot hit the target on the back, with the oblique motive to fit-in the incident with the medical opinion of Dr. Nayak (PW 1). It may also be stated that admittedly when the post-mortem examinations were conducted, Mr. Pishorasingh, Advocate was present. His name appears as the person who identified the dead-bodies in both the post-mortem examination reports EX.P.1 and EX. P. 2. The eye witnesses and the investigating officer have also admitted his presence when the post-mortem examinations were conducted. Kishora Singh is an Advocate and is none else but the real son of the deceased victim Gendasingh. All these facts, taken together, lead to the conclusion that the F.I.R. (EX. P. 3) is a post-investigation and medico-oriented document, which was prepared to bring it in conformity with the medical opinion of Dr. Nayak. Kishora Singh is an Advocate and is none else but the real son of the deceased victim Gendasingh. All these facts, taken together, lead to the conclusion that the F.I.R. (EX. P. 3) is a post-investigation and medico-oriented document, which was prepared to bring it in conformity with the medical opinion of Dr. Nayak. The learned Sessions Judge was correct on his finding that the F.I.R. (EX. P. 3) was prepared after the investigation had initiated and that it was not an innocent or innocuous document. 30. It was argued that the appellants have not assigned any reasons for their false implication. There was no bad-blood between the eye witnesses and the appellants before this incident. The failure of the appellants to show any reason for their false implication strongly suggests that what has been deposed against them by the two eye witnesses is true. In our opinion, the contention is bizarre and should be forthwith rejected. It is a well established principle of our criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and it constantly lies on the prosecution to dislodge this presumption of innocence by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. The law does not cast a duty on the accused to prove his innocence. When the prosecution fails to establish the guilt of the appellants by good and reliable evidence, it is not for the appellants to explain why their names have been mentioned by the prosecution witnesses as persons who had perpetrated the crime. Accepting the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor would be putting the shoe in the wrong leg. 31. The infirmities and pit-falls pointed out by us above speak volumes against the prosecution. The claim of the eye witnesses to have seen the incident is entirely unfounded and baseless. 32. We shall next take-up the contention of Mr. Mulla advanced by him in challenging the conviction. The learned Sessions Judge, while holding that the two eye witnesses had not actually seen the incident, took the view that they had atleast seen the appellants retreating in the house of accused Shersingh. It was argued by Mr. Mulla that there was no material on the basis of which it can be said that the eye witnesses, though had not seen the incident, had atleast seen the appellants retreating in the house of accused Shersingh. It was argued by Mr. Mulla that there was no material on the basis of which it can be said that the eye witnesses, though had not seen the incident, had atleast seen the appellants retreating in the house of accused Shersingh. It was argued that this finding of the trial Court was based on no material. When the eye witnesses have been disbelieved on the main substratum of the prosecution case, the Sessions Judge was not correct in holding that the eye witnesses had atleast seen the appellants taking shelter in the house of accused Shersingh. We find considerable force in the contention of Mr. Mulla. In para 67 of the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has summed-up the whole prosecution case. In sub-para (5) of para 67, he held that the eye witnesses had seen the appellants retreating in the house of accused Shersingh. But he has assigned no reasons, good, bad or indifferent, as to how he arrived at this conclusion in absence of any extra positive material. It is well established that the Court can disbelieve one part of the evidence of a witness and accept the rest of his testimony. But before doing so, such residue of the testimony must inspire complete confidence. The residue is generally accepted when it is corroborated from independent sources. Here in the instant case neither there is extra positive material nor is there any corroboration to arrive at the finding that though the eye witnesses had not seen the incident, they had atleast seen the appellants retreating in the house of accused Shersingh. We may state here that both the eye witnesses belong to the same category of false witnesses. It is a salutary rule that there can be no corroboration of a false witness by another witness of the same character. 33. We repeatedly asked the learned Public Prosecutor and Sardar Karnel Singh as to point out that dividing or demarcating line which Sevres the testimony of the two eye witnesses in two parts and to come to a conclusion that they had seen the appellants retreating in the house of accused Shersingh. Sardar Karnel Singh, in all fairness, conceded that he was unable to support the view taken by the Court below that though the eye witnesses had not seen the incident, they had atleast seen the appellants retiring in the house of accused Shersingh. Sardar Karnel Singh, in all fairness, conceded that he was unable to support the view taken by the Court below that though the eye witnesses had not seen the incident, they had atleast seen the appellants retiring in the house of accused Shersingh. The learned Public Prosecutor also could not support the aforesaid finding of the trial Court. 34. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge adopted the intermediate theory. He disbelieved the eye witnesses as the persons who had seen the incident. But at the same time, he held that they had atleast seen the appellants retreating from the scene of occurrence. The Court cannot adopt an intermediate theory and cannot reconstruct a new story which has not been put forward by any of the parties. We are, therefore, unable to maintain the finding of the trial Court that though the eye witnesses had not seen the actual incident, they had atleast seen the appellants retreating in the house of accused Shersingh through the small gate C. 35. The learned Sessions Judge took the absconding of the accused after the incident as a factor into consideration to assess their guilt. The incident took place in the night of September 20,1983 and the appellants were arrested on September 24, 1984 in the field of accused Shersingh. The investigating officer Jiwan Ram (PW 7) stated that before September 24, 1983 the appellants were not available in their houses. He deposed (vide para 12 of his statement) that:- ^^eSaus ekSds dh dk;Zokgh ds ipkr~ vfHk;qäksa dks muds ?kjksa esa rykk fd;k] ysfdu os ?kjksa esa ekStwn ugha feysA** Merely because the appellants were not available at their houses, it cannot be inferred that they had absconded. They were found in the field of the appellant Shersingh on September 24, 1983. No question was put to the appellants in their statements recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. whether they had absconded or not. The fact of their absconding, therefore, does not stand proved. More over, abscondance of the culprit is a very minor circumstance and has hardly an importance in assessing the guilt. The learned Sessions Judge was not correct in taking the late arrest of the appellants as a factor involving their complicity in the commission of the crime. 36. The fact of their absconding, therefore, does not stand proved. More over, abscondance of the culprit is a very minor circumstance and has hardly an importance in assessing the guilt. The learned Sessions Judge was not correct in taking the late arrest of the appellants as a factor involving their complicity in the commission of the crime. 36. The evidence relating to the recovery of the weapons and their evidentiary value has been rightly not taken into account in assessing the guiLt of the appellants. The learned Sessions Judge was correct that since the seal impression, with which the packets of the weapons are sealed, was not forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory mentioned in report EX. P. 31 could not be read against the appellants. 37. No other contention remains for deliberation. For the reasons discussed above, we are unable to maintain the conviction of the appellants. They were wrongly convicted and sentenced. 38. In the result, the appeal of accused (1) Shersingh, (2) Darshansingh, (3) Gurjartsingh (4) Mahendrasingh is allowed, Their convictions and sentences are set aside and they are acquitted of the offences they were charged with. They are in jail and shall be forthwith set at liberty if not wanted in any other case.