Honble SAXENA, J. — This appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 16.7.90 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, whereby he convicted appellants Mod Singh and Man Singh alias Madan Singh for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. for committing the murder of Madanlal and Sita Ram respectively and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.100/- and in default to further undegro one months S.I. He further convicted the appellants for offences u/ss. 25 & 27 Arms Act and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for one year alongwith a fine of Rs.100/- and in default to further undergo S.I. for one month on each count and directed that their substantive sentences shall run concurrently. He, however, acquitted co-accused Shravan Singh, Hanuman Singh, Nand Singh, Onkar Singh and Bhagwan Singh of the offences u/ss.147, 148, 302/149 and 325 read with 149 I.P.C. (2). The prosecution case as disclosed during trial is that in the morning of 15.08.1987 the Independence Day Function was being celebrated in Government Upper Primary School, Village Loonsara. P.W.16 Gyan Singh Rajput, Sarpanch was presiding over that function, while D.W.5 Veer Singh was the Chief Guest. P.W.1 Bheekham Chand Soni, the Head Master, P.W. 13 Hardeen Ram Kumhar and P.W.15 Ramkishore Soni teachers and P.W.14 Bhanwara Ram P.T.I. were present. About .250-300 villagers also gathered to witness that function. At about 9 A.M., Slow Cycle Race competition took place where in five villagers and students participated. It is alleged that co-accused Onkar Singh and P.W.4 Hari Ram s/o Dala Ram remained last in the said competition and their cycles collided. Thereupon, there was exchange of hot words between them. However, P.W. 14 Bhanwara Ram, P.T.I. and others pacified them and the function continued. It is alleged that thereafter, co- accused Onkar Singh went away from there and after about 10-15 minutes, when P.W.16 Gyan Singh was addressing the audience appellants Mod Singh and Man Singh and co-accused Shravan Singh each armed with country made pistols (Deshi Katta), co-accused Bhagwan Singh having a pistol, co- accused Onkar Singh armed with a pistol and a cycle chain and co- accused Nand Singh and Hanuman Singh having lathis came there. It is further alleged that appellants Mod Singh, Man Singh and co-accused Shravan Singh fired towards Madanlal Jat and committed his murder; that in the meanwhile, Sita Ram S/o. Dala Ram ran away towards the southern side of the School, that thereupon, the appellants and co-accused Shravan Singh ran after him, that when Sita Ram crossed the School boundary in the field of Teja Ram and looked back, the appellants and the co-accused Shravan Singh also fired towards him, that Sita Ram received gun shot injuries and fell down and that thereafter all the assailants made good their escape. The persons, who had assembled for the function, also fled away. Injured Sita Ram was immediately taken to Govt. Hospital, Kuchera, where he was declared dead by the doctor. (3). On that day P.W.18 Bahadur Singh Rajput, S.H.O., P.S., Kuchera was attending the Independence Day Celebrations in the Govt. School, Kuchera. At about 10.25 A.M. he heard a rumour at the bus stand, Kuchera that in the Government School, Loonsara, a fire incident had taken place. Therefore, after scribing a report in the Daily Diary Ex.P.34, he alongwith the police party reached Government School, Loonsara, P.W.6 Rawat Ram Jat, the father of deceased Madanlal, gave a written report to him, which was sent to P.S., Moondwa for registration of the case, because by that time, the Gazette Notification regarding establishment of police Station at Kuchera was not published. P.W.12 Fateh Singh, A.S.I., P.S., Moondwa drew a formal F.I.R. Ex.P.32 and registered the case. Bahadur Singh, inspected the site, prepared site plan Ex.P.2 and memo thereof Ex.P.3. He found the dead body of Madan Lal lying on the northern side in the School Campus and an empty cartridge was also lying nearby. The place, where the dead body of Madanlal lay was drenched in blood. He also noticed blood soaked soil in the field of Teja Ram on the southern side of the boundary of the School. He prepared the memo of dead body of Madan Lal Ex.P.4 and panch Nama Ex.P.5. He seized and sealed the empty twelve bore cartridge vide seizure memo Ex.P.6. He also lifted the samples of blood stained soil and the control soil and seized and sealed them in separate packets vide seizure memos Ex.P.6, 7 & 8. (4). He prepared the memo of dead body of Madan Lal Ex.P.4 and panch Nama Ex.P.5. He seized and sealed the empty twelve bore cartridge vide seizure memo Ex.P.6. He also lifted the samples of blood stained soil and the control soil and seized and sealed them in separate packets vide seizure memos Ex.P.6, 7 & 8. (4). P.W.8 Ram Chandra, Head Constable, who had reached the hospital, prepared the memo of the dead body of Sita Ram Ex.P.10 and Panchayat Nama Ex.P.9. He seized and sealed the blood soaked pant and shirt of deceased Sita Ram and shirt and dhoti of deceased Madanlal vide seizure memos Ex.P.ll and Ex.P.12 respectively. (5). P.W.21 Dr. S.N. Saran conducted the medico legal autopsies of deceased Madanlal and Sita Ram and prepared their post-mortem examination reports Ex.P.46 and Ex.P.47 respectively. (6). Dr. Saran found that the shirt and dhoti of Madan Lal were blood stained; that his shirt was torn at the posterior side of his chest, on the left side. There was bleeding from nose and mouth. He noticed following injuries on the person of Madanlal: — 1. A fire-arm wound, size 1" x 1" and depth upto media stinal cavity on left posterior side of chest 8" below and medial to left shoulder joint. The margins of wound were ragged, irregular and contused. There was blackening of skin around the wound, which was 1" broad on left, upper and lower side and 1/2" broad on the right side; 2. A lacerated wound on dorsal side of left hand over left metacarpal region 3/4" x 1/2" x 1/2"; 3. A lacerated wound on left parietal region of scalp, size 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep above 1-1/2" on the left ear; 4. A lacerated wound, size 3/4" x 1/2" on dorsal aspect of the right fifth metacarpo- phalangeal joint; 5. A lacerated wound on the right side of upper lip, size 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep; 6. A lacerated wound on the right cheek, 1/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep. Due to the firearm wound, fifth and sixth ribs of the left side were fractured at the site of wound. The pleura and right lung were laterated. Twenty six pellets and pieces of cartridege wads were found entangled in the lung tissues. A lacerated wound on the right cheek, 1/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep. Due to the firearm wound, fifth and sixth ribs of the left side were fractured at the site of wound. The pleura and right lung were laterated. Twenty six pellets and pieces of cartridege wads were found entangled in the lung tissues. The left lung was also lacerated, size 4" x 3" and 30 bullets and pieces of cartridge wads were found entagled in the lung tissues. 28 pellets were found in the media stinal cavity, which was full of blood. The doctor also noticed a transverse fracture of the first left metacarpal and another fracture of the middle portion of the right ulna. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock caused by haemorrhage from extensive injuries to the lungs due to gun shots. (7). Dr. S.N. Saran found following injuries on the dead body of Sita Ram:– 1. A Fire arm wound, size 3" x 2" x 2" on right temporal region of the head. Margins were ragged and contused. Subcutaneous and deeper tissues including muscles were disrupted and an irregular hole was produced in the said region of the skull: 2. An abrasion of size 1-1/2" x 1" on the dorsal side of the right elbow: 3. An abrasion of the size 3" x 1/3" on the dorsal side of the left fore-arm 1" below the left elbow. (8). On dissecting the dead body, the doctor found that the skull was shattered and bone pieces were intruded in the brain matter. There was fracture of the right temporal bone continuing with frontal bone 3" x 1/2", two fractures of frontal bone 1-1/2" x 1/2", 3" x 1/2" and 2" x 1/2" and a curved fracture of the right parietal bone crossing the occipital bone and reaching upto left parietal bone of size 8" long. The anterior half portion of the brain was extensively lacerated. The doctor recovered 66 pellets and three cartridge case pieces from the brain matter and muscles of left half of fore-head. The doctor opined that the cause of death was extensive laceration of brain with multiple fractures of skull bone, resulted from gun shot injuries. (9). The anterior half portion of the brain was extensively lacerated. The doctor recovered 66 pellets and three cartridge case pieces from the brain matter and muscles of left half of fore-head. The doctor opined that the cause of death was extensive laceration of brain with multiple fractures of skull bone, resulted from gun shot injuries. (9). The doctor seized and sealed the pellets and wad pieces recovered from the bodies of deceased Madanlal and Sita Ram and handed over those to the police vide his letter dated 16.8.87 Ex.P.52. (10). On the same day, Dr. Saran also examined P.W.6 Rawat Ram, P.W.7 Dala Ram and P.W. 4 Hari Ram. He found an abrasion 4" x 1 cm. on left shoulder of Dala Ram vide M.L.R. Ex.P.50. This injury was simple and caused by blunt object. He found a bruise (red) 10 cm. x 2 1/2 cms. on the left scapular region of P.W.4 Hari Ram vide M.L.R. Ex.P.51. This injury was also simple and caused by blunt object. Rawat Ram had a bruise (red) 8 cm. x 4 cm. on the posterior lateral aspect of left fore-arm and an abrasion 6 cm. x 4 cm. on the left shoulder vide M.L.R. Ex.P;48. The x-ray of left shoulder of Rawat Ram revealed a chip fracture of the acromian process of the scapula. (11). It is alleged that on 22.8.87 appellant Mod Singh was arrested vide Ex.P.16 and at the time of arrest, a twelve bore country made pistol (Deshi Katta) was found concealed in the fold of his trousers, which was seized and sealed vide recovery memo Ex.P.17. Appellant man Singh was also arrested on 22.8.87 and in pursuance to his information dated 30.8.87 Ex.P.42, he got one lathi recovered at his instance. (12). The sealed packets of wad pieces, lead pellets recovered from the bodies of the deceased Madanlal and Sita Ram, twelve bore K.F. Special cartridge case, which was found lying near the dead body of Madanlal and twelve bore country made pistol alleged to have been recovered from the person of appellant Mod Singh were sent to the F.S.L., Jaipur. The Asstt. The Asstt. Director, State F.S.L., in his report Ex.P.53 reported that the said twelve bore country made pistol was a serviceable fire arm and had been fired some time before it was received in the said laboratory, and that on microscopic examination, it was found that the twelve bore cartridge case had not been fired from the said twelve bore country made pistol. It was also reported that the lead pellets and wad pieces are normally used in 12 bore ammunition and could have been fired from the submitted 12 bore country made pistol. (13). After completion of the investigation, the police presented the challan against the appellants and five other co- accused persons in the court of M.J.M., Nohar, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. The appellants were charged with the offences u/ss. 147, 148, 302; in the alternative u/s 302/149, 325/149, 323/149 IPC and u/ss. 25 & 27 Arms Act, who denied the indictment and claimed trial. (14). To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses. The appellants in their plea recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. However, appellant Mod Singh admitted that he had gone to the Government School,/ Loonsara to attend the Independence Day celebration alongwith a small kid aged 5 years; that during the function, a melee took place and gun shot was fired, that the people, who had assembled there dispersed and that leaving that kid he also ran away therefrom. He asserted that he did not attack any person. Appellant Man Singh, who is a police constable, pleaded that on the day of the incident, he was on leave, but was present at Jayal i.e. at the place of his posting and that he was not present in village,Loonsara. Other co-accused persons also denied allegations levelled against them, co-accused Hanuman Singh and Nand Singh also pleaded their alibi. In defence, as many as seven witnesses were examined including D.W.3 Veer Singh Rajput, who was admittedly, the Chief Guest of the function, wherein the alleged incident took place. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the prosecution story that the appellants alongwith five other co-accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly having a common object of committing murders of Madanlal and Sita Ram and come together to the School Campus at the time of the alleged occurrence. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the prosecution story that the appellants alongwith five other co-accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly having a common object of committing murders of Madanlal and Sita Ram and come together to the School Campus at the time of the alleged occurrence. He held that the presence of appellants Mod Singh, Man Singh and co- accused Shravan and Onkar in the said function was well proved, that appellant Mod Singh had fired from his country made pistol on the back of Madanlal and committed his murder and that when Sita Ram ran away towards the southern side of the School Campus, appellant Man Singh fired from his country made pistol causing fatal injury to Sita Ram. He, therefore, held that other co-accused persons could not be vicariously liable for appellants acts. He also held that though the prosecution witnesses have stated that co-accused Shravan Singh had also fired towards Sita Ram, but his gun shot did not hit the latter and as such the prosecution evidence against him was quite vague. He further held that the substratum of the prosecution case has been well proved as against the appellants. He, accordingly by his impugned judgment convicted and sentenced them in the manner detailed above and acquitted other co-accused persons. Hence this appeal. (15). We have heard Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. D.R. Bohra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the complainant at length and meticulously read the evidence and perused the record of the trial court in extenso. (16). Mr. M.L. Garg strenuously contends that the initial version as detailed in the written report Ex.P.14 was that the appellants as well as five other co-accused persons armed with country made pistols, cycle chain and lathis had formed an unlawful assembly and come together to the School Campus, where the Independence Day function was going on, that appellants Man Singh and Mod Singh and co-accused Shravan Singh fired gun shots on his son Madanlal, who died on the spot, that they also fired on his nephew Sita Ram by pistols and Kattas and inflicted injuries to him, who died in the way while he was being taken to hospital and that when he and his brother Dala Ram wanted to rescue them, then the assailants also dealt lathi blows to them. However, during the trial, the prosecution witnesses have made material and substantial improvements and specifically assigning the roles of the appellants, have deposed that appellant Mod Singh had fired at Madan Lal causing injury resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot, that while Sita Ram was running away towards the southern side of the School Campus, appellant Man Singh fired towards him and inflicted injury to him, which proved fatal. The prosecution witnesses have also improved their earlier version and assigned specific acts to co-accused persons in respect of the injuries sustained by P.W.4 Hari Ram, P.W.5 Poona Ram and P.W.6 Rawat Ram, which has been disbeheved by the learned trial Judge. According to him, the prosecution witnesses have made material and substantial improvements in their statements and thus altogether changed the prosecution case. According to Mr. Garg the learned trial Judge has not properly considered this material improvement of the prosecution story and wrongly assessed the evidence criticising the investigating agency. He submits that after post-mortem examinations, when it transpired that deceased Madan Lal and Sita Ram had received only one gun shot injury each, the prosecution witnesses have deliberately made improvements in their statements to make it consistent with the medical evidence and that such material and substantial improvements in the prosecution story makes the statements of P.W.3 Hari Ram son of Ramkaran, P.W.4 Hari Ram son of Dala Ram, P.W.5 Poona Ram, P.W.6 Rawat Ram, P.W.7 Dala Ram and P.W. 14 Bhanwara Ram unworthy of credence. The next limb of the argument of Mr. Garg is that though there was a specific charge against co-accused Shravan Singh that he had also fired towards Madan Lal and Sita Ram and caused injuries to them, but disbelieving the prosecution evidence the trial Judge has acquitted him. Therefore, on the basis of the same evidence, the appellants also deserve acquittal. Mr. Garg argues that though learned Sessions Judge has disbeheved the major portion of the statements of the aforementioned prosecution witnesses regarding coming of appellants and five other co-accused persons together, forming an unlawful assembly in the School Campus, inflicting grievous/simple injuries to P.W.4 Hari Ram son of Dala Ram, P.W.6 Rawat Ram and P.W.7 Dala Ram but has relied their testimony about the gun shot injuries received by deceased Mod Singh & Sita Ram without any rhyme or reason and thus committed an illegality in convicting the appellants. According to him, the learned trial Judge found that the aforementioned prosecution witnesses had tried to implicate other co- accused persons falsely and on that basis, acquitted them, but without any reasonable and valid grounds has partly believed their testimony and convicted the appellants. He asserts that in this case, the independent witnesses viz; P.W.13 Hardeen Ram, P.W.15 Ramkishore Soni, teacher, and P.W.16 Gyan Singh, Sarpanch, who was admittedly presiding over the function, have not assigned any specific role to the appellants and pleaded their ignorance as to who had fired towards Madan Lal and Sita Ram, but the learned Sessions Judge relying on the inconsistent and tainted testimony of interested witnesses has illegally convicted the appellants. Lastly, he submits that once the learned trial Judge finds that the investigation in this case was tainted and perfunctory and not conducted in a proper manner, then for that weakness of the prosecution, instead of giving benefit of doubt to the appellants, he has illegally given benefit to the prosecution, which is against all crystalised canons of criminal jurisprudence and, therefore, the appellants deserve acquittal. (17). Mr. Bohra, the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. J.P. Joshi, the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently assert that the F.I.R. in this case was lodged promptly without any loss of time, wherein all material facts of the incident were mentioned and that it is not at all necessary to stuff the F.LR. with all minuta details and to give a photographic description of the incident. They submit that from the very beginning, the prosecution case is that the appellants and the co-accused Shravan Singh, who were armed with country made pistols, had fired towards Madanlal, who died on the spot and that they also fired towards Sita Ram, who sustained injuries and died while being taken to the hospital; that during investigation, P.W. 18 Bahadur Singh, who belonged to the community of the appellants, recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses in his own fashion and did not record their correct statements. He conducted the investigation in a very slipshod and perfunctory manner in order to help the appellants. They argue that the prosecution witnesses have not materially changed the prosecution version during trial and that the substratum of the prosecution case stands intact and well proved beyond all reasonable doubt. He conducted the investigation in a very slipshod and perfunctory manner in order to help the appellants. They argue that the prosecution witnesses have not materially changed the prosecution version during trial and that the substratum of the prosecution case stands intact and well proved beyond all reasonable doubt. They further submit that the prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that co-accused Shravan Singh had also fired towards Sita Ram, which did not hit him, and that appellant Mod Singh had fired towards Sita Ram, inflicted a gun shot injury on latters head. The testimony of prosecution witnesses in respect of five co-accused persons regarding their participation and injuries caused to P.W. 3, 4 & 5 was replete with inconsistencies. They were, therefore partly reliable and partly unreliable witnesses. The learned trial Judge rightly separated the chaff from the grain. Hence the evidence against the appellants and the co-accused Shravan Singh and other co- accused persons is not alike and common and on account of the acquittal of Shravan Singh, the appellants cannot derive any benefit. They also reiterate the reasonings given by the learned Sessions Judge and supported the impugned judgment. (18). We have bestowed our most anxious and careful consideration to the rival submissions made before us. (19). Appellants Mod Singh, Man Singh & co-accused Shravan Singh were charged for the offence under section 147/148 I.P.C. for being a member of an unlawful assembly having a common object of committing murder of Madan Lal and Sita Ram and that in furtherance of the said common object they were armed with country made pistols and used force for committing murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C., in the alternative they were also charged for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. They were further charged for willfully causing grievous and simple hurts to Rawat Ram and simple injuries to Madan, Sita Ram, Dalla Ram & Hari Ram punishable under section 325/149 & 323/149 I.P.C. and for the offence punishable under sections 25 & 27 Arms Act, (20). In this case P.W.6 Rawat Ram submitted the written report Ex.P.14 before P.W.18 Bahadur Singh, I.O. in the School Campus immediately after the occurrence at 10.45 a.m. In that report, it was alleged that on 15.8.87 at about 9 a.m. when the Independence Day function was being celebrated in the Middle School, Loonsara, appellants Mod Singh and Man Singh and co-accused Shravan Singh each armed with country made pistols, co accused Bhagwan Singh having a pistol co- accused Onkar Singh armed with a pistol and a cycle chain and co- accused Nand Singh and Hanuman Singh having lathies came there together, that appellants Mod Singh, Man Singh and co-accused Shravan Singh fired towards his son Madan Lal, who succumbed to his injuries on the spot, and that they also fired gun shots on his nephew Sita Ram by pistol and country made pistol (Katta), who breathed his last while he was being taken to Kuchera Hospital. It was further mentioned in Ex.P.14 that when he and his brother Dalla Rarn came to rescue them the assailants inflicted injuries by lathies, and that Hari Ram s/o Ram Karan and Poona Ram Saran had also intervened to rescue them. It was also mentioned in report Ex.P.14 that the villagers, who had assembled there to witness the said function also ran away. So in report Ex.P.l4 all necessary details of the incident were given, (21). P.W.21 Dr. S.N. Saran, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Kuchera conducted the autopsy of deceased Sita Ram and Madan lal on 15.8.87 at 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. respectively. He found only one gun shot injury on the left posterior side of the chest of Madan Lal besides other lacerated wounds detailed in postmortem examination report Ex.P.46. The said doctor also found only one firearm wound on the right temporal region of the head of Sita Ram resulting into multiple fractures of skull bones, extensive laceration of brain besides two abrasions on the right elbow and left fore—arm detailed in autopsy report Ex.P.47. Therefore, by 2.30 p.m., it was known to P.W.18 Bahadur Singh, I.O. that deceased Madan Lal and Sita Ram had received only one fire-arm injury each. Therefore, by 2.30 p.m., it was known to P.W.18 Bahadur Singh, I.O. that deceased Madan Lal and Sita Ram had received only one fire-arm injury each. Bahadur Singh in his cross- examination has admitted that after the receipt of the report Ex.P.14, he immediately inspected the place of occurrence, prepared the memo of dead body of Madan Lal, Ex.P.4, site-plan and memo thereof and also seized and sealed the empty twelve bore cartridge case and lifted the sample of blood- stained soil and controlled samples, that he also got the post-mortem conducted by the doctor and that in the evening of 15.8.87 he recorded the statements u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of informant Rawat Ram, injured Hari Ram s/o Dalla Ram, Hari Ram s/o Ram Karan Dalla Ram and Poona Ram, which are marked Ex.D4, Ex.D2, Ex.Dl, Ex.D5 & Ex.D3 respectively. These witnesses in their police statements stated that during the Independence Day celebration in the school there was an item of slow cycling race, wherein the cycles of P.W.4 Hari Ram and co- accused Onkar Singh collided and there were exchange of abuses between them, but the people got them pacified and that thereafter, they were made to sit under the trees near the northern wall of the school. These witnesses further stated that at about 9.15 a.m., the appellants along with five other co-accused persons armed with country made pistols, cycle chain and lathies came to the School Campus and started inflicting injuries to Madan Lal. In those statements, they made a slight improvement to the effect that co- accused Nand Singh was armed with adantli, while in the F.I.R. it was mentioned that he was armed with a lathi. They further stated that appellants Mod Singh and Man Singh fired from their kattas towards Madan Lal causing injuries on his back and head, that when Rawat Ram, Dalla Ram & Hari Ram tried to rescue him, co-accused Hanuman caused injuries on Rawat Rams left hand and shoulder, that thereafter appellants Mod Singh and Man Singh and co-accused Shravan Singh chased Sita Ram and fired towards him, who received a gun shot injury on his head and fell down out side the school boundary in the field of Teja Ram. They further stated that Madan Lal succumbed to his gun shot injury received by him on his back on the spot, that an empty 12 bore cartridge case was lying near his dead body and that Sita Ram succumbed to his injury, while he was being taken to Kuchera Hospital. They also stated that co-accused Bhagwan Singh and Onkar Singh had also caused injuries to Madan Lal by cycle chains and that Dalla Ram & Hari Ram also sustained injuries. P.W.18 Bahadur Singh did not care to further interrogate injured /eye-witnesses to find out as to when Madan Lal had admittedly received only one fire arm injury on his back, and why the witnesses had told him that the said injured had also sustained a fire arm injury on his head. He also did not take pains to interrogate these witnesses to find out as to which of the assailants had cauased the gun shot injuries to Madan Lal and Sita Ram. He rather deliberately left this ambiguity and inconsistency in their police statements. (22). A close perusal of the statements of P.W.3 Hari Ram, P.W.4 Hari Ram s/o Dalla Ram, P.W.5 Poona Ram, P.W.6 Rawat Ram & P.W.7 Dalla Ram reveals that they have categorically deposed that they had specifically stated to Bahadur Singh I.O. that the gun shot fired by appellant Mod Singh had caused injury on the back of Madan Lal, while the gun shot fired by appellant Man Singh had hit the head of Sita Ram and caused injuries to him and that though co-accused Shravan Singh had also fired from his katta, which did not hit any of the deceased and that the portions marked in their respective statements, which were confronted to them, did not contain their correct statements. During trial the afore-mentioned prosecution witnesses have consistently deposed that on 15.7.87 that they had come to Government School, Loonsara to attend the Independence Day celebration, that at about 9.00 a.m. during the slow cycling race competition, the cycles driven by P.W.4 Hari Ram and co- accused Onkar Singh collided, that co-accused Onkar Singh hurled abuses towards Hari Ram, that P.W.14 Bhanwara Ram, P.T.I., who was conducting the function and other persons pacified and asked them to sit, that thereafter co- accused Onkar slipped away from the function and that at about 9.15 a.m. when P.W.16 Gyan Singh, Sarpanch, was addressing the gathering, the appellants and other five co-accused persons armed with, country made pistols, cycle chains, dantli and lathies came to the School Campus through the main gate and started beating Madan Lal, that appellant Mod Singh fired a gun shot towards Madan Lal, which hit on the right side of his back, that when Rawat Ram intervened to rescue Madan Lal, co-accused Nand Singh gave a dantli blow on his back and co- accused Hanuman Singh inflicted a lathi blow on his left shoulder. They have also stated that Dalla Ram, Poona Ram, P.W.3 Hari Ram and P.W.4 Hari Ram also received injuries. They have further deposed that after Madan Lal received a gun shot wound, his cousin Sita Ram ran away towards the southern side and that thereupon appellants Man Singh, Mod Singh and Shravan Singh ran after him, that when Sita Ram reached in the field, out-side the southern boundary of the School and looked back, appellant Man Singh fired his country made pistol from a distance of 3-4 ft., which hit on his right temporal region of the head (Jiwani Kanpati). They have further stated that co-accused Shravan Singh had also fired towards Sita Ram, but his gun shot did not hit him. P.W.4 Hari Ram, P.W.6 Rawat Ram and P.W.7 Dalla Ram had sustained injuries during the incident, which have been well proved by P.W.21 Dr. S.N. Saran. Therefore, they are the stamped witnesses and their presence at the time of alleged occurrence is well proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The presence of eye- witnesses P.W.3 Hari Ram, P.W.5 Poona Ram and P.W.18 Bhanwara Ram Jat, P.T.I. has also been well established, from the prosecution evidence. S.N. Saran. Therefore, they are the stamped witnesses and their presence at the time of alleged occurrence is well proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The presence of eye- witnesses P.W.3 Hari Ram, P.W.5 Poona Ram and P.W.18 Bhanwara Ram Jat, P.T.I. has also been well established, from the prosecution evidence. It is also true that Rawat Ram and Dalla Ram are the fathers of deceased Madan Lal and Sita Ram respectively, that they are brothers inter se, that P.W.4 Hari Ram is son of Dalla Ram and P.W.5 Poona Ram is the Samdhi of the complainant, but simply because they are close relatives,their statements can not be discarded simply on this ground. However, their statements have to be closely scrutinised. (23). In Bhupendra Singh vs. State of Punjab (l),it has been held that the fact that the prosecution witnesses in a murder trial are the sons and daughter of the victim, does not detract from the value to be attached to their evidence, because, naturally enough they are interested in seeing that the real murderer of their father is convicted of the offence and that they can not be expected to adopt a course by which some innocent person would be substituted for the person really guilty of the murder and, therefore, their evidence can not be discarded on the mere ground of their close interest in the deceased. The same principle for appreciation of statements of close relatives of the victim in a murder trial has been reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgement in Surajpal vs. State of U.P. (2). Hence the statements of P.W.3 to P.W.7 can not be discarded, ignored and thrown over board simply because they are relatives of deceased persons. We have carefully and closely scanned the statements of aforesaid injured and eye-witnesses to wit P.W.3 to P.W.7.In our considered opinion the learned trial Judge has committed no illegality in sifting the grain from the chaff, separating the truth from falsehood and rightly held that appellant Mod Singh had fired from his country made pistol towards Madan Lal and caused fatal injury to him, with the result that he died on the spot, that appellant Man Singh chased Sita Ram and fired on him and caused him injuries and that the gun shot fired by co-accused Shravan Singh did not hit Sita Ram. We fully concur with the detailed reasons given by the learned trial Judge in placing reliance on their statements. (24). In the instant case even D.W.5 Veer Singh, who was the Chief Guest of the Independence Day Function, has admitted that the cycles of P.W.4 Hari Ram and co-accused Onkar Singh had collided with each other and that a quarrel ensued between them and that thereupon Bhanwara Ram, P.T.I., who was conducting the sport events, and other persons pacified them. Therefore, the story of the @ cycle incident is not at all an improvement made by the prosecution witnesses, rather this fact has also been well proved from the defence evidence. (25). It may be mentioned here that in the case on hand deceased Madan Lal and Sita Ram belonged to Jat community, which the appellants and other co-accused persons are Rajputs, except co- accused Hanuman Singh, who is Daroga by caste. P.W.16 Gyan Singh, and D.W.5 Veer Singh are Rajputs by easte.P.W.18 Bahadur Singh is also Rajput by caste. (26). P.W.16 Gyan Singh, Sarpanch has stated that he was presiding over the Independence Day function, while D.W.5 Veer Singh was its Chief Guest, that P.W.I Bhikham Chand Soni, Head Master was sitting alongwith them on chairs, that 250-300 students and villagers had assembled in School Campus to witness the said function, that at about 9 a.m. during the slow cycling race, initially five persons had participated, that out of them three participants were eliminated and that in the last co-accused Onkar Singh and P.W.4 Hari Ram remained as contenstants in that race,that their cycles collieded with each other and they fell down, that they started hurling abuses to each other and that thereafter persons intervened, and got them pacified. Gyan Singh has stated that at about 9.15/9.20 a.m while he was delivering his speech, he heard noise "Maro - Maro" from his back side i.e. from main gate of the school, that thereupon he looked back and heard a bang, like that of cracker, that thereupon the audience started dispersing and running here and there. He has further stated that thereafter he heard another gun fire shot from the northern side of the school campus and lastly another bang of shot from the sourthern boundary of the school. He has further stated that thereafter he heard another gun fire shot from the northern side of the school campus and lastly another bang of shot from the sourthern boundary of the school. He has deposed that due to crowd, he could not see as to who had fired those shots and that he had seen appellants Mod Singh and Man Singh and co- accused Bhagwan Singh, Shravan Singh and Onkar Singh running away from the school campus after those three fire shots, that they were empty handed and that after hearing those fire shot, he had seen Madan Lal lying dead and bleeding and that Sita Ram was lying injured. This witness, therefore porves that the incident had actually occurred, but has not named the assailants. (27). D.W.5 Veer Singh has admitted that at the time of the incident, he had heard two sounds of fire shots from his behind i.e. from the northern side of the school campus, that a commotion prevailed in the crowd and people started running away and that after a few moments he again heard a sound of a third fire shot coming from the southern side of the school campus. He has also clearly admitted that he had seen Madan Lal lying dead and that Sita Ram also succumbed to his injuries while he was being taken to the hospital. He has, however, stated that he did not know as to who has fired those gun shots and chased Sita Ram as also the names of those persons who had intervened and received injuries. (28). P.W.I Bhikham Chand Soni, Head Master has stated that when Shri Gyan Singh, Sarpanch was delivering his speech at about 9 a.m., he heard a noise from his behind and that some persons were quarrelling with each other, that thereafter he alongwith the staff members took shelter in his office, that thereafter he heard a sound of a gun shot and that about five minutes thereafter he again heard a bang of the gun shot. He has stated that he was so much frightened that he had closed the doors of his office from inside and that after about fifteen minutes, when the peace prevailed, he came out from his office and saw the dead body of a person lying underneath a tree inside the school campus. This witnes was declared hostile. (29). He has stated that he was so much frightened that he had closed the doors of his office from inside and that after about fifteen minutes, when the peace prevailed, he came out from his office and saw the dead body of a person lying underneath a tree inside the school campus. This witnes was declared hostile. (29). P.W.13 Hardeen Ram and P.W.15 Ram Kishore Soni, who were the teachers in the said school and present during the said function, have also deposed like-wise and stated that when the commotion prevailed in the crowd after hearing the noise of the quarrel, they went inside the office and there they had twice heard the bang of gun shots and that when the incident was over, they came out-side and found the dead body of Madan Lal lying on the northern side of the school campus and that Sita Ram lying on the southern side of the school boundary, who had sustained injuries, that Madan Lal died on the spot, while Sita Ram breathed his last in the way, while he was being taken to the hospital. They have also deposed that, Rawat Ram was sitting near Madan Lal. These witnesses have not been declared hostile. They have also proved that the alleged incident had taken place, but stated that ,since they were frightened, they took shelter inside the school office and as such did not know, who were the assailants. However, the factum of firing of gun shots, the death of Madan Lal and the fact that Sita Ram had also received fire arm injuries stands well established from their testimony. (30). In this case, the conduct and attitude of P. W. 18 Bahadur Singh, Investigation Officer has not only been apathetical but positively hostile towards the complainant and victims. He did not take immediate and prompt measures to apprehend the accused persons. From the very start of the investigation, he gave a twist to the prosecution case and incorrectly recorded the statements of injured persons and other eye-witnesses. He did not take immediate and prompt measures to apprehend the accused persons. From the very start of the investigation, he gave a twist to the prosecution case and incorrectly recorded the statements of injured persons and other eye-witnesses. On the other hand, from the post- mortem examination reports Ex.P.46 & Ex.P.47 as also from memos of the dead bodies of Madan Lal and Sita Ram Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.10, he knew that each of the deceased persons had received only one fire arm injury still then he did not interrogate the injured and eye-witnesses properly to dispel the inconsistency and ambiguity, but recorded their incorrect and incomplete statements. He even did not conduct investigation in right and earnest manner and did not take prompt action to collect relevant evidence. He arrested the co-accused Nand Singh on 20.8.87, appellants Mod Singh and Man Singh and co-accused Onkar Singh, Bhagwan Singh as late as on 22.8.87 and other co- accused persons Shravan Singh and Hardeen on 27.8.87. P.W.9 Likhma Ram Jat, who is the motbir of arrest memos of appellants Mod Singh and Man Singh Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.20, has deposed that they were arrested by Bahadur Singh alongwith co-accused Onkar Singh and Bhagwan Singh from village Kharwa, which is situated at a distance of 30 kos (1 kos = 3.2 kms.) from Merta City and that thereafter he shown their formal arrest at the residence of DY.S.P., Merta City. It may be mentioned here that the alleged recovery of country made pistol Art.2, which is alleged to have been found in the fold of the Pyjama of appellant Mod Singh vide recovery memo Ex.P.17, appears to be a planted recovery. The said country made pistol was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the Ballistic Expert after examination thereof vide his report Ex.P.53 has opined that the said country made pistol was a serviceable fire-arm and had been fired some time before it was recovered in the laboratory, and that one 12 bore empty cartridge case, (which was found near the dead body of Madan Lal) had not been fired from the said country made pistol. It appears that a different country made pistol was planted and shown as having been recovered from the possession of appellant Mod Singh. It appears that a different country made pistol was planted and shown as having been recovered from the possession of appellant Mod Singh. It is also relevant to note that as per statements of P.W.3 to P.W.7, appellants Man Singh had fired from a country made pistol, but it is surprising to note that P.W.18 Bahadur Singh, I.O. recorded the alleged discloser statement of appellant Man Singh Ex.P.42 dated 30.8.87 and in pursuance thereof recovered a lathi at his instance from his house vide recovery memo Ex.P.25. Not a single witness had stated before the I.O. that appellant Man Singh was armed with a lathi. Therefore, there was no occasion of recovering a lathi from his possession. This amply shows remissness on the part of P.W.18 Bahadur Singh, I.O. to deliberately spoil the prosecution case. We are of the considered opinion that P.W.18 Bahadur Singh has conducted the investigation in this case in a most negligent and perfunctory manner, which suffers from lack of thoroughness nad quickness with the result that the statements of the complainant, Rawat Ram, injured P.W.4 Hari Ram, P.W.7 Dalla Ram and eye-witnesses P.W.3 Hari Ram, P.W.5 Poona Ram and P.W.14 Bhanwara Ram have not been truly and faithfully recorded. The I.O. has deliberately tried to leave loopholes in the investigation. he did not make sincere and honest efforts to recover country made pistol from the possession of the appellants, which were used by them, during the incident. He has, thus, conducted the investigation in haphazard manner. In such circumstances the learned trial Judge has rightly relied on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Baladin vs. State of U.P. (3), wherein it has been held that the statements made during the police investigation are not substantive piece of evidence and that the record made by the police Investigation Officer has to be considered by the court only with a view to weighing the evidence actually adduced in the court. Their Lordships have specifically emphasized that if the police record, becomes suspect or unreliable on the ground that it was deliberately perfunctory or dishonest, it loses much of its value and the court in judging the case of a particular accused has to weigh the evidence given against him in court keeping in view the fact that the earlier statements of witnesses as recorded by the police is a tainted record and has not as great a value as it otherwise would have in weighing all the material on the record as against each individual accused. (31). In the back drop of the aforesaid peculiar circumstances of this case, if we look into the contents of the F.I.R. and the police statements and the statements of P.W.3 to P.W.7 and P.W.14, it becomes abundantly apparent that these witnesses have not significantly improved their statements and that the prosecution case has not been materially altered to suit the medical evidence. From the very beginning, the consistent prosecution story is that appellants Mod Singh, Man Singh and co-accused Shravan Singh, who were armed with country made pistol, had fired towards Madan Lal and Sita Ram, that Madan Lal received a gun shot injury on his back, while Sita Ram sustained injury oh his right temporal region. These witnesses have specifically stated that three shots were fired and that the gun shot fired by Shravan Singh, did not hit Sita Ram. Even P.W.16 Gyan Singh Sarpanch and P.W.5 Veer Singh, have in most unequivocal and explicit terms deposed that they had heard three bangs of gun shots. Therefore as regards the overt act of the present appellants is concerned, we do not find any material, substantial and significant change or improvement in the statements of complainant P.W.6 Rawat Ram, injured P.W.4 Hari Ram and P.W.7 Dalla Ram and Eye-witnesses P.W.3 Hari Ram and P.W.14 Bhanwara Ram, P.T.I., so as to discard their statements. (32). Shri M.L. Garg has relied on the case of Sher Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan (4), wherein it has been held that normally the testimony of a witness given on oath is presumed to be true and it lies on the party challenging his testimony to show that the witness is not creditworthy and that his testimony should not be accepted. The usual presumption is that the testimony given on oath is true unlesss it has been successfully shattered and shakened both intrinsically and extrinsically in cross-examination. It has been further held that when the witness changes one version and substitutes it by another version as the exigency requires then the impression is that he is a witness to whom no reliance for any purpose can be placed and that the testimony of such a witness fails to inspire confidence.We respectfully agree with this principle of appreciation of evidence of a witness, but the facts of Sher Singhs case are clearly distinguishable and are at poles apart from the facts of the case on handin Sher Singhs case the trial Judge had held that the F.I.R. was a post investigation and medico oriented document, that the opinion of the doctor, who conducted the medico legal autopsy, that the injury No.l of deceased K was the entry wound and that injury No.2 was the exit wound of the gun shot was clearly erroneous in view of the evidence of the ballistic expert, who deposed that injury No.2 was the entry wound, while injury No.l was the exit wound of the gun shot on the body of K. Therefore the trial Judge held that the two alleged eye-witnesses had not seen the actual incident and that their testimony that they had seen the appellant firing the gun and landing blows to the victims by gandasi was totally false, that the said two eye-witnesses had only seen the appellant retreating with their weapons to the house of accused Sher Singh through the small gate shown in the site-plan, that the appellants were not traceable after the incident and could be arrested after four days and during that period they remained absconding and that the recovery of the gun and gandasis and the F.S.L. report did not have any evidentiary value. However, the learned trial Judge relying on the statements of the two eye- witnesses that they had seen the appellant retreating with their weapons to the house of Sher Singh accused just after the occurrence and that they had remained absconding nearly for four days, found them guilty for the offence under section 302/34 I.P.C. In that case in the F.I.R. and the police statements of the alleged eye-witnesses, it was mentioned that the gun shot had hit the deceased in his back, the same version was given by them meaning thereby that the injury No.l on the back was the entry wound caused by the gun shot, while the injury No.2 of K was the exit wound. It was held that the F.I.R. as well as those statements were based on the findings of the doctor in his post-mortem examination report. However, when the ballistic expert report was received during trial, which clearly revealed that the injury No.2 was the entry wound while the injury No.l on the back was the exit wound, the two eye-witnesses, who were examined in the court after the receipt of the said ballistic experts report, gave up the version given by them in the F.I.R. and in their police statements and they came altogether with a new improved version that the gun shot had hit the victim K in the chest and not on his back. Aparently that improvement was made to fit in with the opinion of the ballistic expert. The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court held that the said improvement was significant, which destroyed the credibility of those alleged eye- witnesses as also the main substratum of the evidence and the case of the prosecution. Aparently such are not the facts of the case in hand. Here in the F.I.R., which was lodged immediately after the occurrence, it was specifically mentioned that the appellants and co-accused Shravan Singh had fired from their country made pistols towards Madan Lal, who died instantaneously and that when Sita Ram ran away, they chased him and also fired towards him causing fatal injuries.In the police statements of P.W.3 to P.W.7 and P.W.14, it was mentioned that Madan Lal had received injuries on his back and head and that Sita Ram received injuries on his right temporal region. During trial these witnesses have stated that appellants Mod Singh had fired towards Madan Lal, which hit on back and resulted his instantaneous death, that appellant Man Singh had Shravan Singh fired towards Sita Ram and that appellant Man Singhs gun shot caused injury on the left temporal region of Sita Ram, while the gun shot fired by co-accused Shravan Singh did not hit him. As mentioned earlier, the appellants were charged for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. for committing the murder of Mdan Lal and Sita Ram and in the alternative under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. Therefore, we do not find any force in the contention of Shri Garg that P.W.3 Hari Ram, P.W.4 Hari Ram, P.W.5 Poona Ram, P.W.6 Rawat Ram, P.W.7 Dalla Ram and P.W.14 Bhanwara Ram have changed their statements at different stages to suit or to fit in the medical evidence and as such their testimony should be discarded altogether. Since the F.I.R. in this case was lodged immediately after the occurrence, there was no occasion for any consultation and embellishment. It is not at all necessary to give a photographic account of the incident and to stuff the F.I.R. with all minute details. It was also not possible for Rawat Ram to have made a detailed F.I.R. In our considered opinion, during trial also the main substratum of prosecution story has remained intact and the same has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, Sher Singhs case does not in any way come to the rescue of the appellants. (33). Shri Garg has also cited the case of Sawal Das vs. State of Bihar (5). In that case, the appellant, his father and step mother were charged with the offences punishable under section 302 simplicitor on the allegation that they had intentionally caused the death of Smt. Chanda Devi, the wife of the appellant, in their house. Appellants step mother was also charged under section 302/149 I.P.C. for having instigated the murder. The trial court amended and converted the charges against the appellant and other co-accused persons into those under section 302/34 I.P.C. and convicted each of them to life imprisonment. Appellants step mother was also charged under section 302/149 I.P.C. for having instigated the murder. The trial court amended and converted the charges against the appellant and other co-accused persons into those under section 302/34 I.P.C. and convicted each of them to life imprisonment. On appeal the Patna High Court acquitted the appellant, his father and step mother for the offence under section 302/34 I.P.C, but found the appellant alone guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor and sentenced him to life imprisonment and acquitted other co-accused persons. In that case there was no direct evidence and the case hinged on circumstantial evidence. In that case, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the case of K.G. Patil vs. State of Maharashtra (6), and contended that when two out of the three accused persons, each having been charged under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. were acquitted, it must be assumed that the two accused persons did not participate in the commission of the offence at all and that the natural result of that view was that the particular act of the individual accused, which brought about the death of the murdered person must be established beyond doubt because he was singly and separately convicted under section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor. Oh behalf of the appellant the case of Sohal Lal vs. State of U.P.(7), was also cited, wherein it was held that in the absence of evidence to show that which act of the accused caused the death of the murdered person, it would neither be proper to convict the accused person under section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor nor under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C, when the High Court had acquitted the co-accused of charges under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and that the State had not appealed against the acquittal. The Apex Court pointed out that in Sawal Dass case the High Court had actually altered the conviction of the appellant from one under section 302/34 I.P.C. to one under section 302 I.P.C, thereby implying that he was not guilty for the offence under section 302/34 I.P.C. It was further held that as held in Yaswant & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (8), the applicability of section 34 I.P.C. to a case depends upon particular facts and circumstances of the case. vs. State of Maharashtra (8), the applicability of section 34 I.P.C. to a case depends upon particular facts and circumstances of the case. After scrutinising the evidence recorded in that case, the Apex Court held that there should be a reasonable doubt as to whether the section 34 I.P.C could be applied to convict any of the three accused persons and that after excluding the application of section 34 I.P.C. from the case, the evidence did not prove conclusively that the appellant must have either throttled the deceased or done some other act, quite apart from the acts of his father and step mother, which brought about the death. Therefore, keeping in view the totality of the evidence and the adverse inference for the non-production of only eye-witness Geeta, which destroyed the value of the evidence and which weighed so much with the High Court, that the appellant was doing some thing like pushing or taking the murdered woman inside room at the time when she was last seen alive, acquitted the appellant of the offence under section 302 I.P.C. Apparently the facts of Sawal Dass case are clearly distinguishable. In the instant case, as many as six injured persons and eye-witnesses have consistently deposed that appellant Mod Singh had fired towards Madan Lal, which hit on his back causing fatal injury, that gun shot fired by appellant Man Singh had hit the right temporal region of Sita Ram resulting in his death and that the gun shot fired by co-accused Shravan Singh did not cause any injury to Sita Ram. The learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted Shravan Singh under section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor and also under section 302/149 I.P.C. The appellants were specifically charged for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor for committing the murder of Madan Lal and Sita Ram and in the alternative tinder section 302/149 I.P.C. The learned trial Judge after discussing thread bare the evidence recorded in this case has rightly held that there was no sufficient evidence to prove the appellants alongwith five co-accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly having a common object of committing the murder of Madan Lal and Sita Ram and, therefore, co-accused were not held to be vicariously liable. We fully agree with the reasons given by the learned trial Judge on this count. We fully agree with the reasons given by the learned trial Judge on this count. Therefore, the evidence against co-accused Shravan Singh and the present appellants was not alike. In such circumstances simply because co-accused Shravan Singh has been acquitted by the learned trial Judge and leave to appeal against his acquittal filed by the State has been dismissed by this Court, it can not be held that the appellants can not be legally held guilty for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor. Therefore, Sanwal Dass case renders little assistance to the appellants. (34). It is true that the learned trial Judge has partly relied upon the testimony of P.W.3 to P.WJ.and P.W.14 and disbelieved their version that all the seven accused persons had come together armed with lethal weapons and formed an unlawful assembly having a common object of committing the murder of Madan Lal and Sita Ram. The learned trial Judge has also held that the evidence regarding inflicting injuries to P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 by the assailants was vague and inconsistent and accordingly he acquitted the appellants as well as the other co-accused persons for the offence under section 323/149,and 325/149 I.P.C.but he has rightly relied on their testimony for the overt acts of appellants Mod Singh and Man Singh for committing the murders of Madan Lal and Sita Ram respectively. It is a well crystalised principle of appreciation of evidence that the court can disbelieve one part of the evidence of a witness and accept another part of his testimony, but before doing so such residue of the testimony must inspire complete confidence and that such part of the testimony is generally accepted, when it is corroborated from independent or extra positive material. In the case on hand, the ocular evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.7 and P.W.14 has been substantially corroborated by the statement of P.W.21 Dr. Saran, who has proved the post-mortem examination reports Ex.P.46 & Ex.47. The doctor has deposed that he had taken out as many as 84 pellets and 4 pieces of wads from the dead body of Madan Lal and 66 pellets & 3 pieces of wads/cartridge case from the dead body of Sita Ram, that those pellets and wad pieces were sealed and handed over to the police. The prosecution had led ample evidence to prove that those packets were received in the F.S.L. intact. The prosecution had led ample evidence to prove that those packets were received in the F.S.L. intact. The ballistic experts report Ex.P.53 shows that the lead pellets and wad pieces could have been fired from a twelve bore country made pistol. Thus, there is sufficient corroboration of the testimony of P.W.S 3 to 7 and 14 by independent and credible evidence. The learned trial Judge has given clear cogent and convincing reasons to show that there was no material inconsistency between the recital in the F.I.R. and the statements of P.W.3 to P.W.7 and P.W.14 made during trial and that those were fully corroborated by the medical evidence. In such circumstances, simply because a part of their statement was not believed, it can not be held that the learned trial Judge has committed an illegality in relying upon some part of their testimony and in convicting the appellants. In our considered opinion, the learned trial Judge has taken genuine pains in sifting chaff from the grain and unfolding the truth and discarding falsehood from the statements of P.W.S 3 to 7 and 14. (35). In Ram Bhukan & Ors. vs. State of LLP. (9), it has been held that the evidence of eye-witnesses including the injured witnesses is not liable to be discarded on the basis of vague statements of other witnesses, who have subsequently been treated as hostile. In the instant case, P.W.I Bhikham Chand, Head Master, P.W.13 Hardeen Ram Kumhar and P.W.15 Ram Kishore Soni teachers had fled away from the scene of occurrence and bolted themselves inside the office of the School. Therefore, they were not in a position to say as to who were the assailants but they have positively proved the factum of the incident, wherein two persons were murdered by gun shots. P.W.16 Gyan Singh, Sarpanch has also proved the factum of incident, but pleaded his ignorance about the identity of assailants for the reasons best known to him. It appears that he being a Rajput has indirectly sided with the accused appellants and deliberately concealed true facts of the incident and for that reason the unshattered and credible testimony of P.W.S 3 to 7 and 14 can not be ignored, brushed aside and discarded. Therefore, the submissions of Shri Garg on this score are devoid of any force. (36). Therefore, the submissions of Shri Garg on this score are devoid of any force. (36). It is true that the prosecution can succeed only by substantially proving the case, which was initially lodged, that it must stand on its own legs and that it can not take advantage of weaknesss of the defence. The court on its own can not make out a new case for the prosecution. In the case on hand the substratum of the evidence given by P.W.S 3 to 7 and P.W.14 has been found to be reliable and worthy of credence. In our considered opinion the learned trial Judge has also not invented or reconstructed a new case for the prosecution. (37). In State of U.P. vs. Anil Singh (10), the Apex Court vide paras 15 to 17 has observed as under : — "15. Of late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the court.lt is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. The Privy Council had an occasion to observe this. In Bankim Bihari Maiti v. Matangini Dasi ( 24 Cal WN 626: AIR 1919 PC 157), the Privy Council had this to say (at p.628): That in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that a case must be a false case if some of the evidence in support of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly untrue. There is, on some occasions, a tenency amongst litigants ..... There is, on some occasions, a tenency amongst litigants ..... to back up a good case by false or exaggerated evidence. 16. In Abdul Gani v. State of Madhya Pradesh (A.I.R. 1954 SC 31), Mahajan, J. speaking for this Court deprecated the tendency of courts to take an easy course of holding the evidence discrepant and discarding the whole case as untrue. The learned Judge said that the court should make an effort to disengage the truth from falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff. 17. It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform." (38). Hence for the reasons mentioned above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Judge has committed no illegality either of fact or law in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences under section 3021.P.C. and under section 25 and 27 Arms Act and that the impugned judgement does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this appeal fails and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge against the appellants are hereby maintained.