JUDGMENT S. K. Jain, J. (1.) ON 6.12.75 at 4 p.m. in village Dhudhui, P.S. Kamasin, district Banda. accused Shri Krishna, Ram Prasad Nai, Gulsher, Keshav, Noor Musalman and Ram Prasad Dhobi along with another person formed an unlawful assembly, the common object whereof was to cause death of Ram Raj, son of Gajadhar, Chhote Lal, Ram Charan and Lallan Singh etc. Further, on the same date, time and place they, being members of the above said unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the above said common object of the said assembly, they used formidable weapons like double barrel and single barrel guns, country made pistols and rifles, and secondly, that on the above date, time and place they, in furtherance of the above said common object of the above said assembly, fired shots with guns, rifles and country made pistols thereby causing such grievous hurt to Ram Raj, Chhote Lal and Ram Charan. as a result whereof all three of them died at the spot. ON the above accusation those accused persons were arrested, charged and tried under Sections 147/148/302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge. Banda. (2.) IN order to prove its case the prosecution had examined Lalla Singh, the complainant. P.W. 1, Daljeet Singh. P.W. 2. Raj Narain, P.W. 3, Girish Chandra Misra, S.H.O., P.W. 4, Constable Munne Khan who had taken the dead bodies for post-mortem examination, as P.W. 5 and Dr. K. L. Pillay, who conducted the postmortem examination on the three dead bodies, as P.W. 6. The report of Chemical Examiner with regard to blood stained clothes was exhibited on record as Ext. Ka-25. After the close of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. were recorded. They pleaded innocence. When called upon to lead evidence in defence, they chose to lead none. The learned trial court believing the prosecution evidence found all the six accused persons guilty under Sections 147/148/302 read with Section 149. I.P.C. and convicted them accordingly. He sentenced each one of them to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149. I.P.C. and two years' R.I. under Section 148, I.P.C. vide his order of sentence of the same date. (3.) FEELING aggrieved, Shri Krishna, Ram Prasad. Gulsher. Noor and Keshav filed Criminal Appeal No. 1249 of 1978. I.P.C. and convicted them accordingly. He sentenced each one of them to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149. I.P.C. and two years' R.I. under Section 148, I.P.C. vide his order of sentence of the same date. (3.) FEELING aggrieved, Shri Krishna, Ram Prasad. Gulsher. Noor and Keshav filed Criminal Appeal No. 1249 of 1978. whereas Ram Prasad, son of Lotan filed Criminal Appeal No. 3121 of 1978. Both these appeals were heard together by a Division Bench of this Court and vide its judgment dated 25.7.89 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal on behalf of the appellants Noor and Keshav, whereas the appeals on behalf of Shri Krishna. Ram Prasad, son of Gunnu, Gulsher and that on behalf of Ram Prasad, son of Lotan were held to have been abated. But subsequently vide order dated 1.8.89 the appeal of Ram Prasad, son of Gunnu was revived and it was directed to be renumbered as Criminal Appeal No. 1249-A of 1978 and reheard. This is how this appeal has come up before us for hearing. (4.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their help perused the record. It has come in the testimony of eye witnesses P.W. 1 Lalla Singh and P.W. 2 Daljeet Singh that Shri Krishna, son of Hanuman. Ram Prasad, son of Gannu (the present appellant), Gulsher, son of Baldi, Noor son of Fakir Baksh, Keshav, son of Jagmohan and Ram Prasad, son of Lotan, i.e., the six accused persons formed a gang of dacoits with Lalla Singh, P.W. 1 and three deceased persons, namely. Ram Charan, Chhote Singh and Ram Raj. A few days prior to December 6, 1975 the six appellants and Lalla Singh and one Collector Ahir assembled for the purposes of committing dacoity but they apprehended that the police was after them and in order to ward off their arrest, Lalla Singh gave his DBBL gun to Keshav and Ram Raj gave his rifle to Collector Ahir, whereas Chhote Singh, deceased had given his double barrel gun to Ram Prasad Nai (the appellant) and all three of them were asked to escape. On 6.12.75 they went to village Tilasa in the morning and met Noor, the appellant in order to collect their weapons. He was told that his companions had gone to village Dudhui. On 6.12.75 they went to village Tilasa in the morning and met Noor, the appellant in order to collect their weapons. He was told that his companions had gone to village Dudhui. Lalla Singh along with a relative Ram Kripal, Daljeet Singh and three deceased persons namely. Ram Charan, Chhote Singh and Ram Raj went to that village, they stopped at the house of Raj Narain at about 4 p.m. All of a sudden Shri Krishna and Ram Prasad Nai, appellants, armed with one DBBL gun each. Collector Ahir with a rifle, Gulsher and Keshav, appellants with one SBBL gun each, Noor and Ram Prasad Dhobi with one country made pistol each arrived there and fired at them, as a result whereof Chhote Singh, Ram Raj and Ram Charan died at the spot, whereas Lalla Singh, Ram Kirpal and Daljeet Singh succeeded in making good their escape. Raj Narain at whose house the above occurrence had taken place has been examined as P.W. 3. He has corroborated the occular account given by the two eye witnesses to the extent that the above mentioned persons had arrived at his house at 4 p.m. on 6.12.75. He had gone to fetch water for them from a well and while he was returning he had heard the reports of firearms and when he reached his house he found dead bodies of Chhote Lal. Ram Charan and Ram Raj lying there. (5.) GIRISH Chandra Misra, Station House Officer stepped into the witness box as P.W. 4 and has proved various steps that he took in the progress of investigation. He had found three dead bodies in the house of P.W. Raj Narain and had prepared inquest reports in respect thereof. P.W. 6 Dr. Pillay had conducted the post-mortem examination on the three dead bodies and had found two firearm entry wounds and two exit wounds on the dead body of Ram Charan, one fire arm entry wound and two fire arm exit wounds on the dead body of Chhote Singh, and two firearm entry wounds and two firearm exit wounds besides two abrasion wounds on the dead body of Ram Raj. He opined that above injuries on the three dead bodies were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (6.) RAJ Narain P.W. 3 has identified Lalla Singh. Ram Kripal and Daljeet Singh at the trial in the court. He opined that above injuries on the three dead bodies were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (6.) RAJ Narain P.W. 3 has identified Lalla Singh. Ram Kripal and Daljeet Singh at the trial in the court. He has also proved the inquest reports Ext. Ka-5, Ka-6 and Ka-7 ; recovery memos Ext. Ka-8 of empty cartridge case and the Tiklies as also the recovery memos Ext. Ka-9, Ext. Ka-10 and Ext. Ka-11 in respect of the blood stained earth and simple earth from the spot. The two eye witnesses, namely, Lalla Singh and Daljeet Singh were cross-examined at great length on behalf of the accused, but no dent in their testimony could be created and they stuck to their guns on all material points. Learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that undisputably the two eye witnesses, namely Lalla Singh and Daljeet Singh were bad characters and, therefore, the conviction of the accused could not be based on their testimony alone. We are not impressed with this argument. Merely on this ground their testimony could not be rejected. They were examined during the Investigation Immediately and the learned Sessions Judge before whom they were examined had accepted their testimony. Besides what has been stated above, the presence of two eye witnesses at the spot at the time of occurrence has been proved by Raj Narain, P.W. 3 who is a witness from independent source. At his house the occurrence had taken place. He is an independent witness and his testimony is forthright and inspires confidence. Simply because the Investigating Officer Girish Chandra Misra had gone to the village Araull, the village of the complainant, the prosecution story cannot be thrown over board. (7.) WE do not find any force in the next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that since the two eye witnesses have failed to give details as to whom of the accused had fired at whom of the deceased, their testimony was liable to be rejected. It has come in evidence that on arrival the accused had opened fire immediately thereby killing the three deceased persons, whereas Lalla Singh, complainant and Daljeet Singh had succeeded in taking shelter in the house of Raj Narain and in such circumstances they could not naturally have noticed as to who had fired at whom. It has come in evidence that on arrival the accused had opened fire immediately thereby killing the three deceased persons, whereas Lalla Singh, complainant and Daljeet Singh had succeeded in taking shelter in the house of Raj Narain and in such circumstances they could not naturally have noticed as to who had fired at whom. Simply because Lalla Singh did not specify the arm held by Noor, the appellant, he could not be disbelieved. Daljeet Singh, P.W. 2 has stated in unambiguous terms that he carried a Tamancha (Country made pistol). Otherwise also he being a member of an unlawful assembly, the members of which had killed three deceased persons in prosecution of the common object of that unlawful assembly, was liable to be convicted under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149, I.P.C. (8.) AS a sequal to the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully brought guilt home to all the accused and the impugned judgment cannot be faulted. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Ram Prasad, son of Gunnu, the appellant, is on ball. His bail bonds are cancelled. He be taken into custody forthwith and lodged in prison to serve out the remaining term of sentence. Appeal dismissed.