Judgment B. R. ARORA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the-judgement dated 30-11-91 passed by the Additional District R Sessions Judge, Banner, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 449, 324/149 and 323, IPC and sentenced each of the accused-appellants to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148, IPC, Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC, seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 449, IPC, one years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324/149, IPC and three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) APPELLANTS Panney Singh, Sawai Singh, Bhoor Singh, Jograj Singh and Swaroop Singh, along with one Teel Singh, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B, IPC. They were, also, tried for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 449, 323 and 324/149, IPC. The case of the prosecution, in succinct, is that the appellants along with co-accused Teel Singh and Balwant Singh hatched a conspiracy to commit murder of Khema Ram. In pursuance to this conspiracy, on 26-2-89, at, about 6. 30 p. m. , the accused Balwant Singh, Swaroop Singh, Bhoor Singh, Jograj Singh, Sawai Singh and Panney Singh came to the Dhani of Khema Ram situated in village Oundka (district Barmer ). Balwant Singh was armed with a sword, Swaroop Singh was armed with a gun, Bhoor Singh was armed with a Kulhari while the remaining three accused were armed with Dharias. They came there to commit the murder of Khema Ram in order to take a revenge of the murder of Karan Singh, which was committed by Khema Ram. At that time, Khema Ram, his mother Smt. Parwati, wife Smt. Gawari, Chandu W/o Bheera Ram, Khema Rams sons Prakash and Harish and daughters Miss Kamla and Miss Nenu were, also, present in the Dhani. Immediately after coming to the Dhani, accused Swaroop Singh opened a fire by the gun. At that time, Khema Ram, his mother Smt. Parwati, wife Smt. Gawari, Chandu W/o Bheera Ram, Khema Rams sons Prakash and Harish and daughters Miss Kamla and Miss Nenu were, also, present in the Dhani. Immediately after coming to the Dhani, accused Swaroop Singh opened a fire by the gun. Khema Ram was standing in the Dhani. The fire did not hit him and being scared, Khema Ram went in the room situated in the first floor and bolted the door from inside. All the ladies present in the Dhani intervened and requested the accused not to kill Khema Ram. The accused inflicted injuries to the ladies as well as to the children present there and stated that they have to take revenge and they will not leave Khema Ram alive. After giving beatings to the ladies and the children, the accused went up-stairs, made a fire at the door and thereafter broke the door, went inside the room and assaulted Khema Ram. Thereafter Balwant Singh separated the head of Khema Ram by cutting it from the neck and took the head of deceased Khema Ram with them and threw the head at a distance of ten Paundas by saying that they were offering the head to Karan Singh. After the accused went away, Prakash (Son of Khema Ram) brought the head of Khema Ram back and placed it near the deadbody. PW 11 Amra Ram S/o Poonma Ram-nephew of the deceased - came to the Dhani in the night and he was informed by PW 12 Smt. Parwati - the mother of the deceased - regarding the incident and the names of the assailants. Amra Ram, from the Dhani, went to Barmer and reached there at about 4. 00 a. m. He informed Jetha Ram regarding the incident. Jetha Ram thereafter asked Amra Ram to inform his father at Guda Malani. Amra Ram thereafter went to Guda Malani and informed his father regarding the murder of Khema Ram. PW 10 Jetha Ram thereafter went to Loona Rams house and from there he and Loona Ram went to Sona Rams house and requested them to go to village Oundka. He then went to the house of Ganga Ram, from where he informed the police that the Rajputs of village Oundka have committed the murder of Khema Ram and the police should proceed to the village. He then went to the house of Ganga Ram, from where he informed the police that the Rajputs of village Oundka have committed the murder of Khema Ram and the police should proceed to the village. This information was given to the police by Jetha Ram at 7. 15 a. m. on 27-2-89. On this information, PW 15 Vishnu Lal, S. H. O. , recorded the message (Ex. D. 1) in the Rojnamcha and proceeded towards village Oundka and reached the Dhani of the deceased, recorded the statement (Ex. P. 30) of Smt. Parwati and sent the same on 27-2-89 at 8. 30 a. m. with Purna Ram, F. C. , to Police Station Sadar, Barmer for registration of the case. The FIR (Ex. P. 31), on the basis of the statement Ex. P. 30 was recorded at Police Station, Sadar, Barmer on 27-2-89 at 9. 15 a. m. PW 15 Vishnu Lal, S. H. O. , after recording the statement of Smt. Parwati, treated it as the FIR and after sending the FIR for registration, proceeded with the investigation and after completing the investigation, presented the challan against the appellants and co-accused Teel Singh and Balwant Singh. Accused Balwant Singh is absconding and, therefore, he could not be tried along with the other accused. ( 3 ) THE prosecution, in support of its case, examined fifteen witnesses. PW 8 Prakash S/o deceased Khema Ram, PW 12 Smt. Parwati - the mother of the deceased and PW 13 Smt. Gawari - the widow of the deceased, are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW 11 Amra Ram is the nephew of the deceased, who came to the Dhani in the night after the incident and was informed by his grand-mother Smt. Parwati regarding the incident, who, thereafter went to Barmer, informed his brother PW 10 Jetha Ram and thereafter went to Guda Malani to call his father. PW 10 Jetha Ram is the other nephew of the deceased, who after being informed by Amra Ram regarding the incident, telephonically gave the information to the police regarding the incident. PW 1 Kesar Singh, PW 3 Loona Ram, PW 7 Sona Ram and PW 9 Pokar Ram are the Motbir witnesses to the recoveries, the arrest of the accused, preparation of various memos etc. PW 2 Jetha Ram is the photographer who took the photographs Ex. P. 5 to Ex. PW 1 Kesar Singh, PW 3 Loona Ram, PW 7 Sona Ram and PW 9 Pokar Ram are the Motbir witnesses to the recoveries, the arrest of the accused, preparation of various memos etc. PW 2 Jetha Ram is the photographer who took the photographs Ex. P. 5 to Ex. P. 22 of the place of the incident and the deadbody of Khema Ram etc. PW 4 Mangi Lal is the Head Constable posted at Police Station, Sadar, Barmer, who registered the FIR on the basis of the statement of Smt. Parwati (Ex. P. 30) which was brought by Purna Ram, F. C. He was, also, the Malkhana Incharge of the Police Station, with whom the incriminating articles remained in the same sealed conditions, which were given to Ranjeet Singh (PW 5) for F. S. L. examination on 18-5-89. PW 5 Ranjeet Singh was the Police Constable posted at Police Station, Sadar, Barmer, who took the sealed articles on 8-5-89 from PW 4 Mangi Lal and thereafter handed-over the same to Bhabhoot Singh - an employee of the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, and after obtaining the forwarding letter from Bhabhoot Singh, took the sealed articles and deposited the same at the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur on 19-5-89. PW 14 Dr. Narendra Kumar was the Medical Jurist posted at the relevant time at the Government Hospital, Barmer, who conducted the autopsy on the corpse of Khema Ram and, also, medically examined Miss Kamla, Smt. Gawari (PW 13), Smt. Parwati (PW 12) and Smt. Chandu W/o Bheera Ram and found injuries on their person. The accused, in support of their case, examined DW 1 Dr. G. K. Ranawat and DW 2 Devi Singh. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, by his judgement dated 30-11-91 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as stated above. He, however, acquitted accused Teel Singh and the present appellants of the offence under Section 302/120-B, IPC. It is against this judgement that the appellants have preferred this appeal. ( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that (i) the FIR (Ex. P. 31) is post-investigation and cannot be treated as the First Information Report; (ii) Ex. It is against this judgement that the appellants have preferred this appeal. ( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that (i) the FIR (Ex. P. 31) is post-investigation and cannot be treated as the First Information Report; (ii) Ex. D. 1 - the information given by Jetha Ram on telephone to the police - should be treated as the FIR because it discloses the commission of cognizable offence and is not cryptic in nature; (iii) it was a blind murder and the names of the accused were not known to the prosecution at the time when Ex. D. 1 was lodged; (iv) the appellants, along with accused Teel Singh and Balwant Singh, were falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity between the parties; and (v) the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and are not reliable. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgement passed by the learned trial Court and submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable manner of doubt and the judgement passed by the trial Court, convicting and sentencing the appellants, does not require any interference. ( 6 ) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 7 ) THE first question which requires consideration is : whether Ex. D. 1 can be treated as the First Information Report and whether the FIR (Ex. P. 31) has been registered after due deliberation, consultation and discussion ? The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the entry Ex. D. 1 in the Rojnamcha discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and in pursuance to that, PW 15 Vishnu Lal, S. H. O.- the investigating officer - proceeded towards the place of the incident, reached the Dhani of the deceased in village Oundka, inspected the site and thereafter recorded the statement of PW 12 Smt. Parwati and as such Ex. P. 30 (the statement of Smt. Parwati) is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and cannot be treated as the first information report. ( 8 ) IN Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan, 1953 Raj LW 348 the injured-informant, on telephone, informed the police that some dacoits have chased him and fired at him with a request to the police to come. ( 8 ) IN Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan, 1953 Raj LW 348 the injured-informant, on telephone, informed the police that some dacoits have chased him and fired at him with a request to the police to come. The investigating officer thereafter proceeded to the place of the incident and recorded the statement of the injured and treated the statement of the injured as the first information report. The Division Bench of this Court held that "the telephonic message to the police should have been treated as the first information report and the statement of the person speaking on telephone after starting of the investigation cannot be treated as the FIR. ( 9 ) IN State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramula, (1993 Cri LJ 3684 : AIR 1993 SC 2644 ) the Circle Inspector received an information of the incident from the Police Constable on duty. On receiving the information of the occurrence, he left for the place of the occurrence and started investigation at the spot. Before proceeding towards the place of the incident, the investigating officer did not make any entry in the Daily Diary nor recorded in the General Diary the information that had been given to him by the Constable who was the first person to give information, on the basis of which he had proceeded to the spot and took-up the investigation in the matter. After he started the investigation, PW 1 who had gone to lodge the FIR, his report was not registered with the Police Station, came at the place of the incident and thereafter his statement was recorded after the investigation had already been started and that was treated as the FIR. The Supreme Court held that "if any statement has been recorded by the investigating officer during the course of investigation of the case, that could not be treated as an FIR as it would be a statement made during the investigation of the case and is hit by Section 162 Cr. P. C. " ( 10 ) IN : Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of West Bengal, 1994 JT (1) (SC) 33 a cryptic telephonic message was received at the Police Station from one Nagar Das (PW 4) - the father of the deceased - which made the police agency to rush to the place of the occurrence. P. C. " ( 10 ) IN : Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of West Bengal, 1994 JT (1) (SC) 33 a cryptic telephonic message was received at the Police Station from one Nagar Das (PW 4) - the father of the deceased - which made the police agency to rush to the place of the occurrence. The investigating officer thereafter proceeded to the place of the occurrence and after reaching there recorded the statement of the mother of the deceased and on the basis of which the FIR was registered and the investigating officer started the investigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held that "the cryptic telephonic message given to the police by Nagar Das was only with the object of informing the police so that it could reach the spot. The investigation in the case only started after the statement of PW 3 Smt. Yasomati Bai was recorded and this cryptic message cannot be treated as the FIR under Section 154, Cr PC and the statement of Yashomati alone can be treated as the FIR. " ( 11 ) IN Ramsingh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (1994) 2 JT (SC) 135 : (1994 Cri LJ 3067), P. S. I. Shimpi was informed on telephone by Head Constable Gopi Nath that a fight had taken place in Ambar Talkies and the deadbody of one Sharad Kumar had been brought to the hospital. The P. S. I. , after receiving this telephonic message, rushed to Irvin Hospital and first recorded the statement of PW 6 and sent the same to the City Police Station for registration of the case. Thereafter he held inquest of the deadbody of the deceased and prepared the inquest report and proceeded with other investigation. The trial Court as well as the High Court treated the cryptic message received on telephone as the first information report. The Apex Court, after considering the law on the point, held (at pp. 3070 and 3071 of Crlj):-"but any telephonic information about commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the nature and details of such information cannot he treated as First Information Report. This can be illustrated. In a busy market place, a murder is committed. The Apex Court, after considering the law on the point, held (at pp. 3070 and 3071 of Crlj):-"but any telephonic information about commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the nature and details of such information cannot he treated as First Information Report. This can be illustrated. In a busy market place, a murder is committed. Any person in the market, including one of the shop owners, telephones to the nearest police station, informing the officer in charge, about the murder, without knowing the details of the murder, the accused or the victim. On basis of that information, the officer in charge, reaches the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed. Can it be said that before leaving the police station, he has recorded the First Information Report ? In some cases the information given may be that a person has been shot at or stabbed. It cannot be said that in such a situation, the moment the officer in charge leaves the police station, the investigation has commenced. In normal course, he has first to find out the person who can give the details of the offence, before such officer is expected to collect the evidence in respect of the said offence. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxit is not in dispute that the investigating officer (PW 21), having received the telephonic message, immediately reached the hospital and he first recorded the statement of PW 6. His sent the said statement to the city police station, for registering a case. Thereafter he held the inquest on the deadbody of the deceased; sent the deadbody of the deceased for postmortem; prepared the injury report in respect of the injuries on the person of PW 6 and sent him for medical examination and treatment. Then he went to the scene of occurrence and collected blood-stained crust of cement plaster and examined witnesses. Under the circumstances mentioned above the statement of PW 6, which was recorded by the investigating officer, after reaching the hospital should have been treated as the First Information Report. . . . According to us, the Sessions Judge as well as the High Court were in error in treating the cryptic message given on telephone by the Head Constable (PW 19) to the officer in charge, as First Information Report. . . . According to us, the Sessions Judge as well as the High Court were in error in treating the cryptic message given on telephone by the Head Constable (PW 19) to the officer in charge, as First Information Report. " ( 12 ) IN Sheikh Ishaque v. State of Bihar, 1995 Cri LJ 2682 : (1995 AIR SCW 2001), Gulabi Paswan the Chowkidar of the village - gave an information at Police Station that there was a commotion in village as firing and brick batting was going-on. This information was recorded in the Police Diary. Thereafter the investigating officer recorded the statement of PW 10 Baldeo Bhagat at the Police Station and treated that as the First Information Report. An argument was raised that "furd Bayan" of Baldeo Bhagat cannot be treated as the first information report as it was recorded after the investigation started and is hit by Section 162, Crpc. The Apex Court repelling this argument held that "the cryptic statement of Gulabi Paswan cannot be treated to be an FIR within the meaning of Section 154, Crpc and the furd Bayan of PW 10 Baldeo Bhagat (Ex. 2) which forms the basis of formal FIR cannot be said to be a statement recorded during investigation and is not hit by Section 162, Crpc. ( 13 ) THE position of law discernible from the above-referred judgements is that if the telephonic message is cryptic in nature and the officer-in-charge proceeds towards the place of the occurrence to find-out the details and the nature of the offence then it cannot be said to be an FIR received by the investigating officer on telephone. But, on the other hand, if the information given on telephone is not cryptic and on the basis of that information the officer-in-charge is prima facie satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence and he proceeds from the police station after recording such information and investigates such offence then that message received on telephone can be treated as the FIR. ( 14 ) IN the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it has to be seen : whether in the present case the information given by PW 3 Jetha Ram was cryptic in nature and the investigating officer PW 15 Vishnu Lal was satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence ? ( 14 ) IN the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it has to be seen : whether in the present case the information given by PW 3 Jetha Ram was cryptic in nature and the investigating officer PW 15 Vishnu Lal was satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence ? The object and purpose of giving information by Jetha Ram on telephone in the present case was not to lodge the FIR but to request the Officer Inchargc of the Police Station to reach the place of the occurrence. PW 15 Vishnu Lal tried to make further enquiry from Jetha Ram on telephone but Jetha Ram placed the telephone on cradle and, therefore, the enquiry could not be made. He, therefore, proceeded at the place of the incident to satisfy himself regarding the incident and to find-out the person who can give-out the details of the incident, recorded the statement of Smt. Parwati (Ex. P. 30) before making further enquiry. The investigation, therefore, started in the present case, only after recording the statement of Parwati (Ex. P. 30) and this statement can alone be treated as the First Information Report. So far as telephonic message given by PW 10) Jetha Ram is concerned, it was intended only to request the investigating agency to rush to the scene of the occurrence and cannot be treated as the First Information Report. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that Ex. D. 1 should be treated as the First Information Report, is, therefore, devoid of any substance. ( 15 ) THE next question which requires consideration is : Whether the statement Ex. P-30 was recorded by PW-15 Vishnu Lal after starting the investigation, or it was first recorded and thereafter the investigation started ? After going-through the evidence available on record we are of the opinion that immediately after reaching the place of the occurrence the investigating officer first recorded the statement Ex. P-30 of Smt. Parwati and thereafter made other recoveries etc. No witness has stated that before recording the statement Ex. P-30 the investigating officer prepared site plan, inquest report, Panchnama etc. or made any recoveries etc. The investigation started only in pursuance to the statement Ex. P-30 and the learned trial Court was right in treating this statement as the First Information Report. No witness has stated that before recording the statement Ex. P-30 the investigating officer prepared site plan, inquest report, Panchnama etc. or made any recoveries etc. The investigation started only in pursuance to the statement Ex. P-30 and the learned trial Court was right in treating this statement as the First Information Report. ( 16 ) THE next question which requires consideration is : Whether the names of the assailants were known to the witnesses or it was a blind-murder and the accused have been implicated falsely in the case on account of inimical relations between the accused and the complainant party ? PW-8 Prakash S/o deceased Khema Ram, PW-12 Smt. Parwati - the mother of the deceased and PW-13 Smt. Gawari the widow of the deceased, have categorically stated that the accused entered the house and first opened fire and when Khema Ram went up-stairs and hid himself in the room, the accused went up-stairs, broke the door and inflicted injuries to the deceased and killed him. The presence of these witnesses, at the relevant time, in the house was most natural. They were the inmates of the house and naturally they should have been present there. They have, also, received injuries in the incident, which further certifies their presence at the spot. The names of the accused were disclosed by PW-12 Smt. Parwati in the FIR itself. The accused were known to the complainant party. The accused have, also, been identified by these witnesses. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that it was a blind-murder and the names of the accused were not known to the witnesses, is, therefore, devoid of any force. ( 17 ) SO far as the false implication of the accused is concerned, that argument has, also, no legs to stand, rather it supplies the motive to the accused party to commit the murder of the deceased. Khema Ram was prosecuted by the accused party for committing the murder of Karan Singh and he was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. He preferred an appeal and his sentence was suspended only in the year 1988. That was a motive which actuated the accused-party to commit the murder of Khema Ram. Enmity is a double-edged weapon which may give rise to falsely implicate a person as well as to the accused party to teach a lesson. He preferred an appeal and his sentence was suspended only in the year 1988. That was a motive which actuated the accused-party to commit the murder of Khema Ram. Enmity is a double-edged weapon which may give rise to falsely implicate a person as well as to the accused party to teach a lesson. The prosecution has, therefore, been able to prove the motive in the present case. The accused have not been falsely implicated on account of inimical relations with the complainant party but it is only on account of bad-blood between the parties that Khema Ram has been murdered by the accused-party. ( 18 ) THE next question which requires consideration is: Whether the eye witnesses PW-8 Prakash, PW-12 Smt. Parwati and PW-13 Smt. Gawari are the reliable witnesses and whether they are stating the true facts of the case ? PW-8 Prakash S/o deceased Khema Ram has stated that on 26-2-89, in the evening, he was in the house. His grand-mother, aunt (Taai), father Khema Ram, sister Miss Kamla, younger brother and his mother were in the house. Accused Balwant Singh Swaroop Singh Sawai Singh, Panney Singh, Jograj Singh, Bhoor Singh and Teel Singh came there. Swaroop Singh was armed with a gun, Balwant Singh was armed with a sword, Sawai Singh, Jograj Singh and Panney Singh were armed with Dharias and Bhoor Singh was armed with a Kulhari. When the accused came, they were sitting in the court-yard. On entering the Dhani, the accused opened tire. His father, being scared, went up-stairs in the room situated on the first floor while his mother, aunt and grand-mother requested the accused not to kill Khema Ram. The accused, also, gave beatings to his grand-mother mother and aunt (Taai ). Being afraid, he hid himself behind a Jhumpa. The accused thereafter went up-stairs. His mother, grand-mother and aunt, also, went up-stairs. Swaroop Singh fired again. The accused broke the wooden door. The accused after breaking the door, went inside the room and after sometime Balwant Singh came-out of the room and down-stairs along with other accused. Balwant Singh was carrying the head of his father. They went outside the Dhani and at the place where Karan Singh was murdered, threw the head of his father and said "karan Singh, we offer the head of Khema to you. " Thereafter the accused went away. Balwant Singh was carrying the head of his father. They went outside the Dhani and at the place where Karan Singh was murdered, threw the head of his father and said "karan Singh, we offer the head of Khema to you. " Thereafter the accused went away. The accused have committed the murder of his father because Karan Singh earlier came to his Dhani for dacoity and he was murdered by his father. ( 19 ) PW-12 Smt. Parwati has, also, started that on the date of the incident, in the evening, they were sitting in the Court-yard of their Dhani. Accused persons came in the Dhani. Three accused came from one gate while the remaining three came from the other gate. The accused were saying that they will take revenge of the murder of Karan Singh. Swaroop Singh was armed with a gun, Bhoor Singh was armed with a Kulhari Balwant Singh was armed with sword while the other accused were armed with Dharias. After entering, the Dhani, the accused opened a fire. Khema Ram, being scared, went up-stairs and hid himself in the room. The ladies of the house requested the accused not to kill Khema Ram. The accused thereupon gave beatings to all the ladies present in the Dhani. Khema Rams daughter Miss Kamla received injuries on the fingers of her leg. The accused thereafter went up-stairs, broke-open the door of the room and dragged Khema Ram. The ladies, also, went up-stairs to save Khema Ram. Khema Ram died. The other accused asked accused Balwant Singh, "you have got a sword with you, you should cut the head of Khema Ram. " After beheading Khema Ram, accused Balwant Singh took his head with him and threw it at the distance of ten Paundas and said "karan Singh, we offer the head to you. " ( 20 ) SIMILAR is the statement of PW-13 Smt. Gawari. ( 21 ) A lengthy cross-examination has been performed on all these three witnesses but their testimony remained unshaken and they stood the test of cross-examination. Their presence at the scene of the occurrence at their own house is most natural. They received injuries during this incident. The evidence of these witnesses, therefore, inspires confidence. ( 22 ) THE evidence of these witnesses further find corroboration from the medical evidence of PW-14 Dr. Their presence at the scene of the occurrence at their own house is most natural. They received injuries during this incident. The evidence of these witnesses, therefore, inspires confidence. ( 22 ) THE evidence of these witnesses further find corroboration from the medical evidence of PW-14 Dr. Narendra Kumar Jugtawat as well as front the evidence of PW-11 Amra Ram and PW-10 Jetha Ram. These witnesses are most truthful witnesses and they have stated what they have actually seen. The learned trial Court was, therefore, justified in placing reliance over the statement of these witnesses. The appreciation of the evidence made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary, unjust or improper. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused appellants beyond reasonable manner of doubt and the judgement passed by the learned trial Court, therefore, does not require any interference. ( 23 ) IN the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.