PALOK BASU, J. These two appeals have been preferred against the judg ment and order passed by VIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut on 16-11-19m in Sessions Trial No. 457 of 1980 whereby the appellants Goverdhan, Mulesh-pal and Ompal have been convicted under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment while appellants Muleshpal and Ompal have been further convicted under Section 394/34, IPC and sentenced to three years R. I. both sentence have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Two charges were framed against the appellants during the trial. First was that on 22-4-1980 at about 6. 15p. m. near the brick-kiln in the jungle (Fields) of Village Kanoda situated on G. T. Road, Police Station paper tosned District Meerut they intentionally committed the murder of Omvir by firing at him thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec tion 302/34, IPC second charge against them was that in furtherance of the common intention the appellants robbed Omvir decease of his catridges and also his licensed rifle and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 394/34, IPC. 3. During the trial 12 witnesses were examined out of whom PW 1, Kiran Pal Singh, PW 3, Prahlad Singh, PW 4, Kiran Singh and PW 5 Bhisham Singh are witnesses of fact whereas the other witnesses are formal in nature whose testimony shall be discussed little while later. The prosecu tion case in short, is as follows : PW 1 Kiranpal Singh is a resident of Village Girdharpur, Police Station Pilakhwa, District Ghaziabad. The deceased Omvir was his own brother. PW 3 Prahlad Singh is the maternal cousin of these two on 22-4- 1980 around 6. 15 p. m. PW 1 informant Kiranpal Singh and PW 3 Prahlad Singh were riding on the Motorcycle bearing registration No. USP 5381 belonging to Prahlad Singh and the deceased Omvir was riding on his Motorcycle bearing registration No. D. H. V. 5594 and were proceeding to Manglore side. The deceased was carrying with him his licensed rifle. When they reached near about brick-kiln on the G. T. Road in Village Walidpur around the fields of Village Kanoda the informants Motorcycle was moving a little ahead from that of the deceased. The deceased was carrying with him his licensed rifle. When they reached near about brick-kiln on the G. T. Road in Village Walidpur around the fields of Village Kanoda the informants Motorcycle was moving a little ahead from that of the deceased. In the meantime yet another Motorcycle on which appellant Goverdhan of Village Tumrail and appellants Muleshpal and Ompal of the Village of the informant were sitting came at a fast speed and over took and reached near the two aforesaid Motorcycle and fired from behind on them. The informant turned back and found that his brother Omvir had been hit by the firing and had fallen down from the Motorcycle. Frightened at this informant speeded up his Motorcycle raising hue and cry and reached the police out-post Sakauti and sought police help From the said police out-post they could get one constable along with whom the informant and his cousin came to the spot where they found that Omvir was lying dead and his Motorcycle was lying on the way side. Bhisham Singh son Prahlad Singh and Kiran Singh son of Ranjit Singh, residents of Village Daurala were standing there (along with Jivan and Vaidya, son of Nityanand) who told him that the three boys (Teen Larke) who were on the Motorcycle have killed this man and carried away his rifle and cartidges and then drove away hastily towards Meerut side. It is said that Kiranpal Singh then made Prahlad Singh and others lo stay at the spot, got a written report prepared through Prahlad Singh and reached to the Police Station Daurala and lodged an FIR at 7. 30 p. m. 4. When the report was brought to the Police Station Daruala PW 2 Balbir Singh, constable noted its contents in the general diary, true copy of which has been proved as Ext. Ka-3 while the said FIR has been proved by PW 1 Kiranpal Singh. As Ext. Ka-1, PW 6 Rajvir Singh, Sub-Inspector was present when the FIR was lodged at the Police Station Daurala. He took up investigation, recorded the statement of constable Balbir Singh and rushed up to place of occurrence. On reaching there he prepared a memorandum of the blood-stained earth and plain earth proved as Ext. Ka 4. He found from the deceased his fire arm licence Ext. 1, two spectacles Exts. 2 and 3, one wrist watch Ext. He took up investigation, recorded the statement of constable Balbir Singh and rushed up to place of occurrence. On reaching there he prepared a memorandum of the blood-stained earth and plain earth proved as Ext. Ka 4. He found from the deceased his fire arm licence Ext. 1, two spectacles Exts. 2 and 3, one wrist watch Ext. 4 three lottery tickets Exts. 5 to 7 five empty cartridges 38 bore, Exts. 8 to 12, 3 empty cartridges 315 bore Exts. 13 to 15, one live cartri dges 315 bore Ext. 16, one bullet of rifle Ext. 17, currency notes of Rs. 450 Ext. 18, a pair of sandle Ext. 19, one sealing of the rifle Ext. 20 for these articles he prepared memorandum Ext. Ka-5. He also then prepared an in quest report proved as Ext. Ka-6. He prepared photo nash and challan nash Exts. Ka 7 and Ka 8 respectively whereafter the deadbody was sealed and handed over to constable Satyapal and Rajendra Singh whose affidavit have been filed during the trial Court which went unchallenged. The dead body of Omvir reached Medical College, Meerut at 11 p. m. through the constables. 5. Dr. R. B. L. Saxena PW 9 was posted as Medical Officer as post mortem duty. He conducted the post- mortem examination of deceased Omvir Singh. Constables Rajendra Singh and Satyapal identified the body. The age of the deceased was about 40 years. His body was overage well built. He found the following injuries: (1) Lacerated wound 2. 5cm. x 2. 00cm x cramial cavity deep with inverted and braised margins, directed towards left involving tragus and external auditory meatus of Rt. car, scorching present. This wound is communicating with a lacerated wound 6 cm. x 3 cm, cramial cavity deep with everted margins, on left side back of head 8 cm. behind left ear. Brain matter is coming out through this wound. (2) Lacerated wound 9 cm. x 22 cm x 30 cm rt. side neck, 9 cm. below lobula of Rt. ear with inverted margins and directed towards left, with extermive laceration of muscles and vessels underlying the wound and communited fracture of bodies of 3rd and 4th carmial vertebra and communicating with a lacerated wound 4 cm. x 2 cm. with inverted margins on left scapula region, 4 cm. from middle and 42 cm. above waists line. No scorching or tatteering. x 2 cm. with inverted margins on left scapula region, 4 cm. from middle and 42 cm. above waists line. No scorching or tatteering. (3) Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 3. 5 cm. with inverted and braised margins on back of left shoulder directed towards right and communicating with a lacerated wound 9 cm. x 7 cm. with ever ted margins on left side chest, 12 cm. above left nipple. No scorching or tatteeing. (4) Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 0. 5 cm. with inverted margins, directed towards left, left side chest 13 cm, above and inner to left nipple at 10 oclock position and communicating with a lacerated wound 2. 5 cm. x 2 cm. with everted margins is left side chest 12 cm. above left nipple is 11 oclock position No scorching or tatteeing. (5) Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 2 cm. x 7 cm. with inverted margins on outer aspect of front of left upper arm, 17cm. above bond of left elbow and communicating with above wound 9 cm x 7 cm. on left side chest 12 cm. above left nipple (injury No. 3 ). No scorching or tatteeing. (6) Lacerated wound 7 cm. x 4 cm. bone deep on outer aspect of left wrist and then on eminance of left hand with communicated fracture of lower end of left radius outer two carpal bones and first mata carpal and dislocation of 1st. Mata carpophylongeal joint. Margins bruished. No scorching or tatteeing, (7) Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1 cm x skin deep on left side back-middle, 3 cm. from middle No scorching or tatteing. (8) Lacerated wound 0. 5 cm. x 8 cm. within inverted margins, on outer side Rt. thigh, 30 cm. above Rt. knee, directed upwards and backwards when a hard modular structure is felt; a bullet is removed from underneath the skin and sealed. No scorching or tatteeing. (9) Abraded contusion in an areas 30 cm. X 10 cm. on Rt. side back 6 cm. above waist line. (10) Abrabed contusion 2 cm. x 2 cm. on top of right shoulder. (11) Abrasion 2 cm. x 1-5 cm. on inner side of back of Rt. elbow. (12) Abrasion 1 cm. X 0. 5 cm. on thinder aminance of right hand. (13) Abrasion in an area 6 cm. X 4 cm. on part of right knee. (14) Abrasion 2. 5 cm. X 2. x 2 cm. on top of right shoulder. (11) Abrasion 2 cm. x 1-5 cm. on inner side of back of Rt. elbow. (12) Abrasion 1 cm. X 0. 5 cm. on thinder aminance of right hand. (13) Abrasion in an area 6 cm. X 4 cm. on part of right knee. (14) Abrasion 2. 5 cm. X 2. 00 cm, on outer aspect of right ankle. (15) Abrasion 4 cm. X 1 cm. on dorsum of 5th Rt. toe and adjoining part of foot. (16) Abrasion 0. 5 cm. X 0. 5 cm. on dorsum of 4th Rt. toe. (17) Abrasion 2 cm. X 1 cm. on left sole at the base of great toe. (18) Abraded contusion 8 cm. x 3 cm. on upper part of left scapular region. (19) Multiple abrasion in an area 6 cm. X 2. 5 cm. on chin. (20) Communited fracture of upper end and heard of left humerus and adjoining part of scapula underneath the wound 9 cm. X 7 cm. described in injury No. 3. Internal Injuries (1) Communited fracture of right temporal, right parietal bone, left parietal and occipital bones of the skull. Membrance underneath the fractured bones were lacerated and there was extensive laceration of posterior half of both. Carebral hemispheres. There was also fracture of right enterior, right middle and posterior carnial fosses. (2) The stomach contained about 50 grams of semidigested food. 6. The doctor was of the opinion that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage. The post- mortem report is Ext. Ka-19 and the carbon copy is Ext. Ka-20. One pant, one underwear, one peti, one Baniyan and one shirt, which the body was wearning, were handed over by him to the constables. The injuries with inverted margins were caused by fire arms by piercing of the missible and all the inverted margins have their corresponding exist wounds. All injuries, except abraded wounds, were caused by fire-arms. More than one fire-arm was used. Scorching was present, the wound could have been caused within a range of 4 ft. and in other cases the shot was fired from a distance of more than 4 ft. Abrasions and abraded contusions may have been caused by the fell of the motorcycle or as a result of friction with hard substance. The internal damages in the body was the result of the anti-mortem injury. and in other cases the shot was fired from a distance of more than 4 ft. Abrasions and abraded contusions may have been caused by the fell of the motorcycle or as a result of friction with hard substance. The internal damages in the body was the result of the anti-mortem injury. The injuries caused by fire-arm were sufficient to cause the death. These were the opinion given by the doctor. The above statement is given by the doctor expressing the opinion of his post-mortem examination. The post-mortem report is Ext. Ka-19. 7. It may be stated here that PW 7 Ramvir Singh Sirohi, Station Officer Police Station, Daurala took up the investigation from 8-5-1980. Thereafter PW 6 Rajvir Singh recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared siteplan. It transpired that the appellants Muleshpal and appellant Ompal surrendered before the Magistrate in Delhi on 12-5-1980 and appellant Goverdhan surrendered in the District Meerut on 14-5-1980. On their re quests and obtaining in structions, the concerned Magistrates appear to have transferred them to District Meerut for remand and investigation and appearing in the case because they were wanted in. PW 8 Ram Kumar Mittal, constable, Civil Lines, Meerut and PW 10 Virendra Singh, head constable, Delhi Police Force have been examined to prove that all the three appellants on their surrendering before the court concerned were kept baparda, were taken baparda and were lodged baparda at the relevant places. It may be mentioned here that the statement of PW 8. Ram Kumar mittal, con stable has not been challenged in the cross-examination at all and the suggestion extended to PW 10 Virendra Singh was that loading of the appel lants Muleshpal and Ompal in Police Station, Civil Lines was with ulterior motive. However, no further points have been elicited and the testimony of this witness also about keeping of the appellants baparda has remained un shaken and practically unchallenged 8. PW 11 Kshetrapal Singh, Executive Magistrate held the identifica tion proceedings of the three appellants by the eye-witnesses PW 4 Kiran Singh and PW 5, Bhisham Siagh. It may be repeated here that these eye witnesses PW 4, Kiran Singh and PW 5, Bhisham Singh belonged to Village Walidpur and were residents of places practically adjacent to the place of occurrence. It may be repeated here that these eye witnesses PW 4, Kiran Singh and PW 5, Bhisham Singh belonged to Village Walidpur and were residents of places practically adjacent to the place of occurrence. The appellants were not known to them and as mentioned above they had divulged to the informant that the three boys on the Motorcycle had killed the deceased Omvir and for this reason the Investigating Agency rightly sought to test their memory and held the identification parade. PW 11 Kshetrapal Singh conducted the test identification parade regarding Muleshpal and Ompal on 18-7-1980 and with regard to the appellant Gover-dhan on 29-7-1980. The result of both the parades was that the appellants Ompal and Goverdhan were rightly picked up by PW 4, Kiran Singh and PW 5, Bhisham Singh whereas the appellant Muleshpal was correctly picked by up PW 5, Bhisham Singh only as PW 4, Kiran Singh could not pick up. 9. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the three appellants have been named by two eye- witnesses namely, PW 1 Kiranpal Singh, the informant and PW 3 Prahlad Singh, Scribe of the FIR whereas the appellant Ompal and Goverdhan have further been identified by the eye-witnesses, namely, PW 4 Kiran Singh and PW 5 Bhisham Singh whereas the appellant Muleshpal has further been identified by PW 5 Bhisham Singh. 10. The learned trial Judge placed implicit reliance on the testimony of four eye-witnesses and recorded the conviction and sentence of the appel lants as noted above. Aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed by the appellants which have been heard together. 11. Sri P. N. Misra, learned senior Advocate assisted by Sri R. N. Sharma and Sri Arvind Vashisth learned counsel for the appellants have been heard at sufficient length in support of these appeals whereas Sri S. P. Tewari, learned Government Advocate has been heard on behalf of the State of U. P. , S. P. S. Raghav, learned counsel has been heard on behalf of the informant also and the entire record has been scrutinised thoroughly. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants have raised five points for consideration, each point will be mentioned seriatim and discussed and dealt with then and there. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants have raised five points for consideration, each point will be mentioned seriatim and discussed and dealt with then and there. Point No. 1: "the report at the police out-post Sakauti indicates that the infor mant was not an eye-witness and may be that the said report is a subsequently calculated step by the Investigating Agency so as to cover up the time gap in lodging the F. I. R. " 12. As noted above, consistent statement of PW 1 Kiraupal Singh and PW 3 Prahlad Singh is that as soon as they heard the shots being fired from behind and noticed that their brother Omvir had been hurt by firing at the behest of the three appellants, they speeded up their Motorcycle and reached the police- out post Sakauti. It is said by them that there they met a constable and brought him to the place of occurrence but by that time they were inform ed by PW 4 Kiran Singh and PW 5 Bhisham Singh that the three boys have already committed the crime of murdering the deceased Omvir and have also filed away with his rifle and catridges. 13. The prosecution has examined PW 12, Sheoraj Singh who happens to be the constable who was posted then at police out-post Sakauti. The prosecution has also filed original register which was maintained at the said police out-post. Relevant entry exists at 6. 10 p. m. which shows that the informant Kiranpal Singh, resident of Girdharpur, Police Station Pilakhwa, district Ghaziabad along with Prahlad Singh had reached the police out-post and intimated that his brother has been shot at. At this information constable Sheoraj Singh was deputed to help after necessary instructions. 14. The statement of PW 12, Sheoraj Singh, constable is that police out post Sakauti is not a reporting police station. Consequently no F. I. R. could be lodged at that police station. The reason of not recording a full fledged F. I. R. has clearly been adverted to by this witness. From his statement which is corroborated by the entry in the register, it is apparent that he had accompanied Karanpal Singh, PW 1, and Prahlad Singh, PW 3 and had gone to the spot. The reason of not recording a full fledged F. I. R. has clearly been adverted to by this witness. From his statement which is corroborated by the entry in the register, it is apparent that he had accompanied Karanpal Singh, PW 1, and Prahlad Singh, PW 3 and had gone to the spot. He has said that he noticed the dead body of the deceased Omvir lying by the side of G. T. road whereas Motorcycle was lying a little ahead near about a bush. 15. Two criticisms had been advanced in this connection by the learned counsel for the appellants. It has been said that during the statement the said constable has said that he did not make any enquiry about the manner of the assault at the spot nor anybody informed him about the manner in which the incident had taken place. On this basis it is argued that the pro secution case as is stated and deposed to by the two eye-witnesses is not correct. Second argument advanced was that in the nothing made in the diary atleast the name of the accused must have been mentioned, that the informant was expected to divulge the names of the assailants also if he could name the deceased, i. e. , his brother. 16. The fact that police out-post Sakauti was not a reporting police station has not been challenged by the defence. Under the circumstances the police help sought by the informant Kiranpal Singh, at that particular stage did not result in F. I. R. about the incident. Rushing of PW 12 Sheoraj Singh to the place of occurrence along with these two witnesses, shows his anxiety to reach the spot and be of help, if he could. Under such circumstances there was no occasion nor was it necessary for the constable to make entries about those things which he was not entitled to under the law. Similarly the argument that the name of the assailants should have been mentioned by the informant at the police out-post should not be taken to be a point in favour of the defence for the simple reason that Kiranpal Singh had not lodged any FIR at the police out-post. Similarly the argument that the name of the assailants should have been mentioned by the informant at the police out-post should not be taken to be a point in favour of the defence for the simple reason that Kiranpal Singh had not lodged any FIR at the police out-post. It has come in the statement of PW 1 Kiranpal Singh, PW 3 Prahlad Singh and PW 12 Sheoraj Singh that they had reached the spot and after having seen and noticed the dead body the constable had left the place because there were other witnesses and persons present at the spot where the informant immediately wrote the F. I. R. and carried it to the police station. Under the circumstances a non-reporting police out-post could not lodge an F. I. R. and he was, therefore, duty bound to extend only that help which he could. The only information about the incident having been con veyed, entry in the register is neither an F. I. R. nor can it be said to be suffering from any infirmity as the prosecution evidence of lodging of the F. I. R. is done at the police station Daurala at the filing of the written report by PW 1 Kiranpal Singh. The two arguments regarding first point aforesaid have to be rejected. Point No. 2: "the eye-witness account furnished by the prosecution is contradicted by the medical evidence. " In this connection learned counsel for the appellants cited the statement of PW 1 Kiranpal Singh in para 25 wherein he has said that the deceased, on being hit by the fire shot fell down on his left side and that as to indicate a visible injury to be noted in the post-mortem report; and subsequently since none of the other eye-witnesses have not been cross-examined on this point, the testimony of PW 1, Kiranpal Singh should not stand tarnished to that extent. It may be remembered that if PW 1 was an eye-witness of what had happened after he had left for the police out-post then this criticism may have detained this Court for further discussion. But the fact that this informant was absent for a short while during which the deceased was actually brutally murdered, the statement of somebody having told him that the deceased was also once hit by the butt end, does not diminish the testimony of this witness at all. 17. But the fact that this informant was absent for a short while during which the deceased was actually brutally murdered, the statement of somebody having told him that the deceased was also once hit by the butt end, does not diminish the testimony of this witness at all. 17. Consequently there is no conflict between the eye-witness account and the medical evidence existing on the record. 18. It may be stated here at this stage that the dimension of the injuries and the fire-arm wounds are easily traceable to the recovery of eight empty cartridges from the spot which were noted by the Investigating Officer as soon as he had found them after reaching the spot. There is no cross- examination at all on this aspect of the matter and once its held true that those empty cartridges were found on the spot which go to correspond to the injury sustain ed by the deceased, the eye-witness account and ocular testimony get corroborated by the medical evidence and the fact of recovery of the cartridges. Therefore, this argument should also fail. Point No. 3 and Point No. 4: "the F. I. R. was not lodged at the time and manner written at the police station. This will only indicate that the F. I. R. was lodged at the police station with the Station Officer to whom it was addressed. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellants must, therefore, fail. 19. In this connection another point emphasised was that PW 4, Kiran Singh and PW 5, Bhisham Singh have stated in their statements that the deceased Omvir was also fired at from his own rifle by the assailants, it was argued that if it was so, this fact should also have been mentioned in the F. I. R. 20. It may be stated here at the cost of repetition that the informant wag not an eye-witness of the subsequent incident which had happened within the time he consumed in reaching the police out-post and coming back. It may be stated here at the cost of repetition that the informant wag not an eye-witness of the subsequent incident which had happened within the time he consumed in reaching the police out-post and coming back. Con sequently, the gist of what he had himself seen and what was told to him was incorporated in the FIR and the fact that the deceased was killed by the appel lants, the fact that they had looted the rifle and the cartridges of the deceased and the fact that they had driven away the Motorcycle towards the Meerut side have been mentioned in the F. I. R. Therefore, what was divulged to the informant does find place in the F. I. R. and there is absolutely no omission which can be said to be material omission. Consequently, the testimony of PW 1, Kiranpal Singh as supported by the testimony of PW 2, Balbir Singh and PW 6, Rajvir Singh, Sub-Inspector, Fully corroborated by the inquest report, recovery of eight empty cartridges from the spot and the post-mortem report, leave no room for doubt that the F. I. R. was lodged at the time and in the manner as supported by the prosecution witnesses. This argument consequently also fails. 21. Coming to the point as to whether the conduct of the witnesses was unnatural it was emphasised that according to the testimony of PW 4 Kiran Singh and PW 5, Bhisham Singh the Investigating Officer (Darogaji) did not enquire from them any details about the incident which indicates that that they were not eye-witnesses or at least they were not present at the place of occur rence and, therefore, this unnatural conduct in keeping silence creates doubt about the presence of the eye-witnesses, goes against the prosecution and should diminish the evidentiary value of the testimony of these eye- witnesses. 22. At the outset it may be stated here that the Investigating Officer has not been cross-examined on the point. The Investigating Officer has said that he has really recorded the statement of PW 5, Bhisham Singh, in that very night at about 12 in the mid-night. The categorical statement of PW 5 Bhisham Singh also is that his statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer at 12 mid-night at his house. The Investigating Officer has said that he has really recorded the statement of PW 5, Bhisham Singh, in that very night at about 12 in the mid-night. The categorical statement of PW 5 Bhisham Singh also is that his statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer at 12 mid-night at his house. It is impossible to conceive as to how and when the Investigating Officer would reach the house of PW 5 Bhisham Singh if he was not an eye-witness, he was not named in the F. I. R. and he had not himself taken the Investigating Officer to his house for recording the statement. Similarly, the statement of PW 4, Kiran Singh is that his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer in the early morning of the next day. If these statements remain then the fact that at the spot the Investigating Officer did not enquire the details of the incident from them or the witnesses them selves did not volunteer to submit the details before the Investigating Officer then and there, do not go to show any unnatural conduct. It was in their presence that the Investigating Officer had prepared various documents, recovery memo, site plan and inquest report. All this was consuming time. The Investigating Officer remained busy in the job till 11 p. m. and then he proceeded to record the statements of witnesses and recorded the statement of PW 5 Bhisham Singh at 12 in the mid-night and PW 4 Kiran Singh in the morning hours of the next day. All this establishes the fact that Investigating Agency appears to have been working with promptitude and accuracy; there is no unnatural conduct on the part of the eye-witnesses when they volunteered nothing at the spot which according to the learned counsel, was indicative of such an omission on the part of the eye witnesses. The eye-witness account in fully corroborated by the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no unnatural conduct attached to the testimony of any eye-witness. Point No. 5: "the identification evidence furnished by PW 4 Kiran Singh and PW 5, Bhisham Singh should be discarded. " 23. As has been mentioned above, the evidence against the appellants consists of two types. Point No. 5: "the identification evidence furnished by PW 4 Kiran Singh and PW 5, Bhisham Singh should be discarded. " 23. As has been mentioned above, the evidence against the appellants consists of two types. First, naming of all the three appellants by PW 1, Kiranpal Singh and PW 3 Prahlad Singh, and second, identification evidence furnished against appellants Ompal and Goverdhan by PW 4, Kiran Singh and PW 5, Bhisham Singh and against appellant Muleshpal by PW 5 Bhisham Singh. As noted above, the test identification parade was held on 18-7-1980 with regard to appellants Muleshpal and Ompal whereas it was held on 29-7-1980 with regard to the appellant Goverdhan, PW 11, Kshetrapal Singh, Executive Magistrate had conducted both the identification proceedings. Noth ing has been brought out in the cross-examination of PW 11, Kshetrapal Singh to show that he had not taken sufficient precaution to conduct a fair test identification proceeding. It appears from the examination of identifica tion memo prepared by the Magistrate that he had taken all precautions and that in the test identification parade the appellants Ompal and Goverdhan were correctly picked up rightly by PW 4 Kiran Singh and PW 5, Bhisham Singh whereas the appellant Mulesh was correctly picked up by PW 5, Bhisham Singh whereas the other witness did not identify him. 24. It may, however, be mentioned here that about the appellant Goverdhan the Magistrate has noted that he had 2-2i cut mark on the left side of his lip which was not noted in the identification memo. This witness says that the said cut-mark was not present at the time of holding of identi fication parade and, therefore, he had not noted it. No material has been brought out on record by which it can be said that the cut-mark was not in the existence at the time when the identification proceedings was held. Con sequently, the benefit, if any, about this but-mark may go only to the appel lant Goverdhan and not to any other appellants. 25. There is another argument advanced on behalf of the appellant Goverdhan. It is said that in the FIR as well as in the testimony of the eye witnesses the description of the three appellants was given "three boys" (Teen Larke jo Motorcycle par they ). 25. There is another argument advanced on behalf of the appellant Goverdhan. It is said that in the FIR as well as in the testimony of the eye witnesses the description of the three appellants was given "three boys" (Teen Larke jo Motorcycle par they ). It was pointed out that the age of Goverdhan was noted by the learned trial Judge as 40 years and that he has produced a document indicating that he had been in employment for about 23 years on the strength of these two circumstances it was pointed out that perhaps the description of Goverdhan would not fit in with the description of boys. 26. Without going into this issue it can be safely said that the cut-mark on the lip of the appellant Goverdhan may have existed at the time of identification parade also and therefore, its benefit should go to him. It is admitted to the informant PW 1, Kiranpal Singh that there was direct motive with regard to the other appellants Ompal and Goverdhan whose friend Goverdhan was. The naming of Goverdhan, therefore, as one drifing the Motoi cycle may be due to the fact that he was friendly alone and did not know or share the intention of the others that Omvir would be killed and should die that evening. Consequently without any embelishment on the eye-witness account, as a measure of abundant caution the benefit of doubt may be extended to the appellant Goverdhan. 27. The FIR indicates that the informant and his family members had long drawn litigation and enmity with Ompal and Muleshpal appellants being the sons of Vijaipal. They are consistently named by the two eye witnesses and both of them having been identified by two independent witnesses and therefore, their participation in the incident is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It may be mentioned here again that both these eye witnesses namely, PW 4, Kiran Singh and PW 5, Bhisham Singh are. residents of the place which is about 50-60 Kms. away from the residence of the appel lants. They were not known to the appellants from before. It may be mentioned here again that both these eye witnesses namely, PW 4, Kiran Singh and PW 5, Bhisham Singh are. residents of the place which is about 50-60 Kms. away from the residence of the appel lants. They were not known to the appellants from before. Nothing has been brought out on the record by challengs their testimony that so far as Bhisham Singh, PW 6 is concerned his chak was only close to the brick-kiln where the incident had taken place and so far as PW 4 is concerned his resi dence is only about 2 Kms. away from the place of the occurrence. In the circumstances they were most natural witnesses. One criticism that was levelled against Bhisham Singh was that he has said that at the initial stage he was towards east of the brick-kiln. It was sought to be argued that this might indicate that he was not near the place of the occurrence as indicate the site plan by the Investigating Officer. This argument is presumptive inasmuch as the place shown in the site plan would be towards north-east and may not be directly east. Therefore, the description does not go to contradict either the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer or to disminish the eye-witness account furnished by PW 5, Bhisham Singh or PW 4 Kiran Singh. 28. The identification evidence furnished by these two witnesses PW 4 Kiran Singh and PW 5, Bhisham Singh was sought to be challenged on the ground that the identification parade was held in about fifty five days after the appellants were available for such proceedings with the prosecution in Meerut. To say the least, 55 days normally is not at all delayed identi fication because the witnesses had to be procured for their presence in the parade and the presence of the Magistrate has also to be secured. Emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the appellants on two Supreme Court deci sions that in a given case two weeks delay and in another case 47 days delay was held to be sufficient to throughout the identification evidence. It is true that in both the cases the Supreme Court has pronounced the said law. But it is clear from the reading of the two judgments that the aforesaid observa tions were confined to the facts of the case. It is true that in both the cases the Supreme Court has pronounced the said law. But it is clear from the reading of the two judgments that the aforesaid observa tions were confined to the facts of the case. Learned counsel for the appel lants wanted to challenge the identification evidence on two additional grounds also. The first ground was that even if the presence of PW 4 Kiran- pal Singh and PW 5 Bhisham Singh is taken for granted at the bush its dis tance was about 50/60 paces from the place where the dead-body was found by the Investigating Officer and this should be long enough a distance to permit identification. Second ground was that the incident must have happened in so short span of time that the impression about the culpriate could not have been deep enough to be retained for fifty five dags to be utilised at the test identification parade. 29. Both the grounds become non-existence on correct appreciation of evidence. The place from where the two witnesses saw the incident is only seventy paces from the place where the Investigating Officer found the dead-body. The three Motorcycles crossed from the front side the witnesses. They heard the noise of firing and saw that the man riding on the middle motorcycle was hit and fell down after a few yards and the motorcycle fell a few yards away on the opposite side pavement. Then they saw that two of the three persons got down from the third motorcycle, fire at Omvir, snatched his rifle and cartidges and then fired at them from the rifle also. Thereafter they went away at a very fast speed toward Meerut. The third miscreant had kept the Motorcycle in started condition. This means that the miscremeants first crossed the witnnsses from Meerut side while driving to wards Muzaffarnagar side. After committing the ghastly crime they again went back towards Meerut side. Therefore, all the three miscreants again passed from their front side. The incident consumed nearly 4/5 Minutes. Thus very close view of the miscreants and that too for sufficiently long duration concerning a type of occurrence which will leace indelicate impression on the on lookers, was available to these two witnesses. Therefore, there is no reason at all to disbelieve or discard the identification evidence and it is wholly reliable. The incident consumed nearly 4/5 Minutes. Thus very close view of the miscreants and that too for sufficiently long duration concerning a type of occurrence which will leace indelicate impression on the on lookers, was available to these two witnesses. Therefore, there is no reason at all to disbelieve or discard the identification evidence and it is wholly reliable. On the facts and circumstances emerging in the instant case, however, the identification evidence is in addition to the eye-witnesses account naming also and, therefore, fallacy sought to be found out in the identifica tion evidence is non-existent. 30. It may be mentioned here that there was a bald suggestion on behalf of the defence that these eye- witnesses who had identified the appel lants were lated to the informant. This suggestion was stoutly denied. Nothing has been on the record which may indicate that these witnesses are related or partisan to the informant. They are in the category of wholly reliable witness. 31. In view of the aforesaid discussion Criminal Appeal No. 2670 of 1981 filed by Goverdhan is allowed. He is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. He is on bail. He need not surrender, his bail bonds are discharged, 31. Criminal Appeal No. 2669 of 1981 filed by Muleshpal and Ompal is dismissed. Both the appellants are on bail. They will surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the sentence awarded. Appeal dismissed. .