K. D. SHAHI, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9-11-1978 passed by Shri B. D. Maurya, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Sessions Trial No. 228-A of 1974, whereby appellants Pritam Singh and Niranjan Singh have been con victed under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 307/149, 323/149 and 307/149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one years R. I. , imprisonment for life, 3 years R. I. , 6 months R. I. and 3 years R. I. respectively. Appellants Abhai Raj Singh and Nirbhai Singh have been convicted under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 307/149 323/149 and 307/149 of Indian Penal Code and sen tenced to one years R. I. imprisonment for life, 3years R. I. , 6 months R. I. and3years R. I. respectively. Appellants Debi Dayal Singh and Shiv Pal Singh have also been convicted under Section 147,302/149,302, 323/149 and 307/149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 6 months R. I. imprison ment for life, 3 years R. I. , 6 months R. I. and 3 years R. I. respectively. Appellant Shiv Pal Singh has further been convicted under Sections 148, 307, 302/149 and 307/149 of Indian Penal Code and sen tenced to one years R. I. , 3 years R. I. , imprisonment for life; 3 years R. I. and 6 months R. I. respectively. All the senten ces have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the case are that there was old enmity between the complainant side and accused Pritam and a case under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. was pending. On the side of the complainant Atbal Singh, Baldeo Singh, Mrigraj, Shami Ullah, Maboo Singh were parties while on the side of the accused Pritam Singh, Abhai Raj Singh, Niranjan Singh and Debi Dayal Singh were the parties. On 19-7-1974, the complainant and his son Rajendra Singh and his nephew Mangat Singh were going to Hamirpur to attend the case. They were also accompanied by Naseem Ahmad son of Samiullah, Lalloo and Shiv Pal, who were going to Hamirpur for their personal work from village Mawai Jaar. The complainant and the aforemen tioned persons went up to village Kwasa on foot and from there they boarded a truck and sat towards back side. At about 8. They were also accompanied by Naseem Ahmad son of Samiullah, Lalloo and Shiv Pal, who were going to Hamirpur for their personal work from village Mawai Jaar. The complainant and the aforemen tioned persons went up to village Kwasa on foot and from there they boarded a truck and sat towards back side. At about 8. 00 a. m. when they reached village Lalpura, the truck was stopped all of a sudden and the accused persons emerged. Accused Pritam Singh armed with Pharsa, Niranjan Singh armed with Ballam, Abhai Raj Singh armed with Pharsa, Nirbhai Singh armed with Ballam, Debi Dayal Singh armed with lathi and Shiv Pal Singh armed with single barrel gun came there. They came towards the back side of the truck. Smelling the danger, the complainant, deceased and other persons came down from the truck. Accused persons exhorted and Shiv Pal Singh fired. On this Mangal Singh ran and caught hold of the gun of Shiv Pal. Accused Pritam Singh attacked Mangal Singh with his Pharsa which hit in the back of the head of Mangal Singh. Mangal Singh started to run. Accused Niranjan Singh attacked Mangal Singh by Ballam and killed him. Accused Abhai Raj Singh, Nirbhai Singh and Devi Dayal at tacked Rajendra Singh and killed himty a Pharsa, Ballam and lathi. When the com plainant and others rushed to save the victim and asked the accused persons not to kill then accused Devi Dayal injured the complainant, Naseem Ahmad and Lalloo by Lathi. The occurrence was also wit nessed by Chandra Pal Singh Thakur of village Kumahupur. 3. The complainant left the dead bodies of Rajendra Singh and Mangal Singh at the outskirt of village Lalpura under the care of the villagers and went to the police station and lodged the F. I. R. on 19-7-1974 at 10. 15 a. m. The chick report was prepared on the basis of verbal F. I. R. of the complainant. The chick report Ext. Ka-1 was prepared by Sewak Singh (P. W. 9), who made entires in the general diary. The Head Constable took the blood stained Baniyan of Naseem Ahmad Ext. K. a-10. Naseem Ahmad, Laloo and Harpal were sent for medical examination. Shri Ganga Singh S. I. took the investigation in his hand. He reached the place of occur rence. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Mangal Singh Ext. 12. The Head Constable took the blood stained Baniyan of Naseem Ahmad Ext. K. a-10. Naseem Ahmad, Laloo and Harpal were sent for medical examination. Shri Ganga Singh S. I. took the investigation in his hand. He reached the place of occur rence. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Mangal Singh Ext. 12. He also prepared photo lash and challan lash, Exts. 13 and 14. He also took in his posses sion the blood stained clothes of Mangal Singh and prepared Fard Ext. 15. There after, he sealed the dead body of Mangal Singh in a cloth. He also prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Rajendra Singh, Ext. Ka-16. He prepared photo lash and challan lash, Exts. Ka-17 and 18. He also took in his possession the blood stained clothes of Rajendra Singh and prepared Fard Exi. Ka-19. Thereafter, he sealed the dead body of Rajendra Singh in a cloth. The dead bodies of Mangal Singh and Rajendra Singh were sent for post-mortem examination to Sadar Hospital, Hamirpur alongwith two letters addressed to Medical Officer Incharge, Sadar Hospital. Hamirpur, Exts. Ka-20 and 21. 4. The Investigating Officer took blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence. He also inspected the spot and prepared site plan, Ext. Ka-22. 5. On 20-7-1974, the Investigating Officer Ganga Singh (P. W. 10) made a search for the accused persons, but he could not get any clue about them. On 21-7-1974, he interrogated the owner of Truck No. UPG- 5916 in which the victims and the witnesses were said to have been travelling on the fateful day. On 26- 7-1974, he got the two accused persons on police remand and brought them to village Wari and in presence of public witnesses namely Shiv Baran and Ram Sewak recovered Pharsa from a Nala known as Kathoran Nala on the pointing of accused Abhai Raj Singh. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer reached village Mawai Jaar alongwith accused Pritam Singh at 5. 30 p. m. He took public witnesses, namely, Jodha alias Kali Charan and Mathura Kachhi. He recovered Pharsa and Ballam at the pointing of accused Pritam Singh from the Atari of his house. 6. Dr. V. N. Mehrotra (P. W. 4) con ducted the autopsy on the dead body of Rajendra Singh. 30 p. m. He took public witnesses, namely, Jodha alias Kali Charan and Mathura Kachhi. He recovered Pharsa and Ballam at the pointing of accused Pritam Singh from the Atari of his house. 6. Dr. V. N. Mehrotra (P. W. 4) con ducted the autopsy on the dead body of Rajendra Singh. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of deceased Rajendra Singh: (1) Lacerated wound 5 cm x 5 cm x scalp deep on right side of skull over parietal region, 6 cm above the right ear. Wound was placed horizontally. (2) Incised wound 3. 5 cm x 0-5 cm x bone deep on right side of skull, placed longitudinally and situated 1 cm below injury No. 1. A piece of bone was sliced. (3) Incised wound 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x scalp deep on right side of skull, parallel to mid line longitudinally placed, 5 cm above the occipital. (4) Incised wound 7. 5 cm. x 2 cm x bone deep, horizontally placed, just above the right ear, in temporal and occipital region of skull on right side. Bone underneath the wound was cut and fractured. (5) Incised wound 5 cm x 1. 5 cm x muscle deep, in the upper portion of right side of neck, extending backward from behind the right ear. Lobule of the right ear was also cut. (6) Incised wound 5,5 cm x 1. 5 cm x bone deep on the right side of face, obliquely placed. Inner and 1. 5 cm from the outer angle of the right eye and outer end 2. 5 cm below and in front of right ears lobule. Maxillary bone on right side cut underneath the wound. (7) Punctured wound 1. 5 cm, x 0. 5 cm x 2 cm deep above right eye ball and below right eye-brow. (8) Incised wound 5 cm x 1. 5 cm x bone deep, on left occipital region of skull, situated 2. 5 cm behind and middle portion of left ear, wound was at right angle to neck. Bone under neath cut and fractured. (9) Penetrating wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x 2 cm on back of left side of neck in the lower part at the level of the 7th cervical spine 3 cm away from the mid line. Direction back to front. (10) Penetrating wound 1 cm. x 0. Bone under neath cut and fractured. (9) Penetrating wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x 2 cm on back of left side of neck in the lower part at the level of the 7th cervical spine 3 cm away from the mid line. Direction back to front. (10) Penetrating wound 1 cm. x 0. 5 cm x 4 cm on the back of right side of neck in its lower part, 2 cm from the mid line at the level of 6th cervical spine. (11) Incised wound 13 cm x 0. 25 cm x skin deep on the back over left scapular region, horizontally placed. 1977 (2) JIC-11 (12) Penetrating wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x 4 cm deep in the middle portion of neck in front. Directions was from front to back, (13) Penetrating wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x 2 cm on right side of neck, 2 cm below from the angle of right mandible. (14) Penetrating wound 0. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm x 1 cm on right side of neck, 0. 5 cm below injury No. 13. (15) Penetrating wound 0. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm x 1 cm on right side of neck, 1 cm below injury No. 14. (16) Penetrating wound 0. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm x 1 cm on right side of neck, 0. 5 cm outer to injury No. 15. (17) Penetrating wound 0. 5 cm x 9. 75 cm x 1 cm on right side of neck, 1 cm below injury No. 16. (18) Penetrating wound 0. 5 cm. x 0. 2 cm x 0. 75 cm. On right side of neck, 2 cm. above from the inner end of right clavicle. (19) Penetrating wound 1 cm. x 0. 5 cm x chest cavity deep, at the level of the 3rd right inter-costal space, near fight border of sternum. Direction right to left obliquely. (20) Penetrating wound 1 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep, situated at a octal portion to left nipple and 3 cm inner to it at the level of 4th inter costal space. (21) Penetrating wound 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x 1 cm on the back in left lower portion, 3 cm from mid-line and 5 cm above iliac crest. (22) Contusion 10 cm x 2. (21) Penetrating wound 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x 1 cm on the back in left lower portion, 3 cm from mid-line and 5 cm above iliac crest. (22) Contusion 10 cm x 2. 5 cm (in the two parallel lines) obliquely placed over the right scapular region. (23) Contusion 11 cm x 2. 5 cm on the right scapular region, 5 cm below injury No. 22. (24) contusion 12 cm x 2. 5 cm on right side of back in inter scapular region parallel to mid-line. 7. On internal examination, the doc tor found that left temporal and. occipital bones were cut and fractured and right partietal bone was also cut and fractured. 8. The doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of Mangal Singh deceased: (1) Incised wound 7 cm x 1. 5 cm x bone deep on left side of skull in temporal region, lower end of wound situating 2 cm behind and above the upper and of left ear pinna. Wound was at right angle to the mid line and skull. Bone underneath the wound was cut and fractured. (2) Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep on left side of skull over parietal region, making a right angle to injury No. 1. It was anterior and was merging with the upper end of injury No. 1 making the wound of injury No. 1 of the shape of inverted l. (3) Incised wound 4. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x scalp deep, over the top of head on left side, horizon tally placed, situated 1. 5 cm from the injury No. 2 and 14 cm. above the occipital protuberance. (4) Incised wound 6. 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on right side of skull in parietal region, obliquely placed and 1. 5 cm to injury N. 3 on its right side. Anterior end of the wound is 11 cm above the pinna of right ear. The bone under neath the wound is cut and fractured. (5) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on right side of skull placed at right angles to injury No. 4 and mealing with 1 cm behind from its anterior end. (6) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep in the mid line of skull, 2 cm in front of injury No. 3. (5) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on right side of skull placed at right angles to injury No. 4 and mealing with 1 cm behind from its anterior end. (6) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep in the mid line of skull, 2 cm in front of injury No. 3. (7) Incised wound 10. 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep, obliquely placed with right side of the face, cutting lower 1/3 of right ear completely. Lower part hanging attached with the face. (8) Punctured wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x 3 cm on right side of neck, 1 cm from the mid line and 5 cm above from the inner end of clavicle. Direc tion was right to left and horizontally. (9) Punctured wound 1 cm x 0. 2 cm x 1. 5 cm on right side of neck, 2. 5 cm above from the middle of the right clavicle. Direction was above downs ands. (10) Punctured wound 1. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x 2 cm on right submandibular region, 4 cm from the mid part of chin and 2 cm from the mid line. Direction was backward. (11) Punctured wound 1. 5 cm below from the angle of right side of neck, 3. 5 cm below from the angle of right mandible. Direction was right to left. (12) Punctured wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x 5. 5 cm on left side of the neck, 2 cm below lobule of left ear. Direction was left to right and back wards. (13) Punctured wound 1. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x 2. 5 cm on the back of the neck on left side in the lower portion and 1 cm from the mid line. Direc tion was back to front. (14) Abrasion on right side of back 3 cm x 0. 5 cm over the scapular region in upper part. (15) Abrasion 3 cm x 0. 5 cm over right arm in upper portion infront and 10 cm below shoulder joint. (16) Penetrating wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x 3 cm on the back of the right flank region and 5 cm above the iliac crest. Direction back to front. (17) Penetrating wound 1. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x 2. 5 cm over right arm in upper portion infront and 10 cm below shoulder joint. (16) Penetrating wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x 3 cm on the back of the right flank region and 5 cm above the iliac crest. Direction back to front. (17) Penetrating wound 1. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x 2. 5 cm in the mid auxiliary line over outer side of right flank and 2 cm the iliac crest. Direction right to left. (18) Penetrating wound 1 cmxo. 5 cm just 1. 5 cm above the injury No. 17. Direction was right to left. (19) Penetrating wound 0. 5 cm x 0. 2 cm x 1 cm situated 21 cm just above injury No. 18. direction was right to left. (20) Penetrating wound 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm in the middle of right leg on inner side. Direction was front to back. (21) Penetrating wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x 2. 5 cm on the right side of back in mid scapular region, 1 cm from the mid-line. Direction was back to front. (22) Penetrating wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x 2 cm on the right side of back in lower part flank region, 4. 5 cm from the mid line and 10 cm above the iliac crest. Direction was back to front. (23) Penetrating wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x 3 cm on left side of back in lower portion, 1. 5 cm from the mid line and 9 cm above the iliac crest. Direction upwards and back to front. (24) Penetrating wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x 2 cm on left side and back in lower portion, 3 cm above and outer to injury No. 23. Direction was upwards and back to front. (25) Penetrating wound 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x 3 cm on left side of back in lower portion, 3 cm above and outer to injury No. 24. Direction back to front. (26) Penetrating wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 4. 5 cm on left lower side of back, situated 2. 5 cm outer to injury No. 25. Direction was back to front. (27) Penetrating wound 1. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x 3 cm situated 4. 5 cm below injury No. 26. Direc tion was back to front. (26) Penetrating wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 4. 5 cm on left lower side of back, situated 2. 5 cm outer to injury No. 25. Direction was back to front. (27) Penetrating wound 1. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x 3 cm situated 4. 5 cm below injury No. 26. Direc tion was back to front. (28) Penetrating wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x 2. 5 cm in left lower portion of back, 2 cm below injury No. 27. (29) Penetrating wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x 4 cm on left buttock on its outer and upper por tion. 9. According to the doctor, both the deceased died out of shock and haemor rhage as a result of ante- mortem injuries. The post- mortem reports are Exts. Ka-2 andka-3. 10. Injured witness Naseem was medically examined on 19-7-74 by Dr. Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Sumerpur District Hamirpur. He found the following injuries on his person: (1) Lacerated wound of 5 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep over middle and medial aspect of left side of head, 13 cm above the left ear. The wound was situated anterior-posteriorly over head. The wound was irregular. The margins of wound were covered with reddish clotted blood. (2) Contusion of 3 cm x 2 cm over medial and posterior aspect of left shoulder. The con tusion was regular one, red in colour and tender. 11. The doctor also examined Har Pal Singh the same day at 11. 30 a. m. and found the following injury on his person: 1. Contusion of 8 cm x 7 cm over dorsal aspect of left hand. The contusion was well defined, regular one. red in colour and tender one. No crepitation was present and all the movements of fingers and wrist of left hand were present. 12. The injured witness Laloo Yadav was also medically examined and the doc tor found the following injury on his per son: (1) Contusion of 10 cm x 3 cm over lower 2/3rd of left arm. The contusion was situated obliquely over anterior lateral aspect of left arm. The contusion was well defined, regular one, red in colour and tender one. No crepitation was fell. No restriction or limitation of move of left arm was present. 13. The contusion was situated obliquely over anterior lateral aspect of left arm. The contusion was well defined, regular one, red in colour and tender one. No crepitation was fell. No restriction or limitation of move of left arm was present. 13. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by Shri K. P. Singh, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur. The charges were framed on 20-9-1977. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons in Hindi. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 14. The prosecution examined P. W. 1, Har Pal Singh. He is an adjured witness. He is the father of the deceased Rajendra Singh. Har Pal Singh was also an accused in the case under Sections 107/117 Cr. PC. He was also going to attend the case. He had deposed about the entire prosecution story and proved the F. I. R. Ext. Ka-1. The other eye-witness is Laloo Yadav. He was also of the same village to which the deceased and the informant belonged. He was also going along with the deceased and the injured, on the same truck. He had seen the occurrence and when he tried to inter fere, he was also injured by accused Devi Dayal by lathi. P. W. 3, Chandrapal Singh, was another independent eye-witness. He was resident of village Kumhupur. He had gone to Lalpura Bus- stand. He had to go to attend a case in the Court of Sessions, Hamirpur. As soon as the reached the Bus stop, he had seen the occurrence. He had corroborated the en tire prosecution case. P. W. 4, Dr. VN. Mehrotra, proved the post-mortem reports of the deceased Rajendra Singh and Mangal Singh. P. W. 5, Muneshwar Prasad, examined the injuries of Naseem, Har Pal Singh and Lalloo Yadav and proved the injury reports. P. W. 7, Shiv Charan Singh, was a public witness of the recovery of Pharsa at the pointing of accused Abhai Raj Singh. P. W. 8, Kali Charan alias Jodha, was also a witness of recovery of Pharsa and Ballam at the pointing of accused Pritam Singh. P. W. 9, Sewak Singh, had prepared the chick report. P. W. 10, Ganga Singh, S. I. was the Investigating Officer in this case. 15. P. W. 8, Kali Charan alias Jodha, was also a witness of recovery of Pharsa and Ballam at the pointing of accused Pritam Singh. P. W. 9, Sewak Singh, had prepared the chick report. P. W. 10, Ganga Singh, S. I. was the Investigating Officer in this case. 15. After their examination, the prosecution closed its evidence and the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313, Cr. PC. In their statements, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They further pleaded that they had been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity. They also denied the recovery of the weapons. 16. After the close of the prosecution evidence and the statements of the accused persons, the defence examined D. W. 1 Ram Saran. He deposed that he was a teacher in Mawaijar Primary School in 1974. On the basis of attendance register, he stated that in July 1974 Sant Ram was studying in Class III and he as class teacher of Class III. This witness had been ex amined to show that the case of Laloo Yadav was false that he was going to Hamirpur to take medicines for his son Sant Ram, who was ill. The defence also proved five papers in their defence. 17. The learned Sessions Judge heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after appreciation of evidence, he found that all the charges were proved against the accused persons. Consequently, he con victed and sentenced the accused persons as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the above judgment and order, the accused persons preferred this appeal. 18. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. During the course of cross- examination and arguments, the fol lowing facts were admitted: (1) There was murder of Sughar Singh and Gajju of village Mawai Jaar. Sughar Singh was father of accused Nirbhai Singh. Gajju was the son of Buwa of accused Shiv Pal Singh. They were murdered before 25 years of this occur rence. In that murder, Atbal Singh, brother of complainant Har Pal Singh, father of deceased Mangat Singh, Kali Deen and Baldeo Singh were accused persons. Kali Deen was father of Atbal Singh. Baldeo Singh was brother of Har Pal Singh. They were sentenced to life imprison ment by the Sessions Court but were acquitted by this Court. In that murder, Atbal Singh, brother of complainant Har Pal Singh, father of deceased Mangat Singh, Kali Deen and Baldeo Singh were accused persons. Kali Deen was father of Atbal Singh. Baldeo Singh was brother of Har Pal Singh. They were sentenced to life imprison ment by the Sessions Court but were acquitted by this Court. It is also admitted that before three years of this occurrence, there was a case under Section 307 IPC because accused Abhai Raj Singh had fired over Baldeo Singh, brother of the complainant. Accused Abhai Raj Singh was convicted by Sessions Court. Appeal was also dismissed by this Court. It has come in evidence that in the case under Section 302 IPC Atbal Singh and others were acquitted by this Court, but their acquittal might have revived the enmity. Much was argued on behalf of the ac cused persons that this old enmity of 25 years could not be the proximate cause and motive of this murder, but it was admitted that on the date of occurrence a case under Section 107/117 Cr. PC. was also pending between the parties. (2) It is admitted that in the case under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. Atbal Singh, Baldeo Singh, Mrigraj Singh, Shami Ullah, Maboo Singh, were parties on the side of the com plainant while on the side of the accused persons Pritam Singh, Abhai Raj Singh, Niranjan Singh and Debi Dayal Singh were parties. These per sons are accused in this case as well. In addition, Nirbhai Singh and Shiv Pal Singh are also ac cused in this case. Admittedly, Nirbhai Singh is the son of Sughar Singh and Shiv Pal Singh is admittedly the brother of the mother of Gajju. (3) It is also admitted that 19-7-1974 was the date fixed in the case under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. Naturally, the parties had to go to Hamirpur to attend the case on that date. (4) It is also admitted that Chandra Pal Singh was convicted by the Magistrate. He had filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions. Al though the said appeal had been compromised but still the compromise had not been verified and he had to go to attend the case in the Court of Sessions. 19. The factum of murder of Rajendra Singh and Mangat Singh is ad mitted. He had filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions. Al though the said appeal had been compromised but still the compromise had not been verified and he had to go to attend the case in the Court of Sessions. 19. The factum of murder of Rajendra Singh and Mangat Singh is ad mitted. The injuries on the persons of Naseem, Harpal Singh and Lalloo Yadav were denied and were said to have been fabricated for the purpose of the present case. The accused persons took the plea that they had been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 20. The first questions which comes out is whether there was any motive for the murder of these two persons by the ac cused or not. It can safely be said that enmity is a ground to commit murder. Enmity is also a ground to falsely implicate the innocent persons. If the motive is there and has been proved by the prosecution, the case of the prosecution becomes believable. In this particular case, as said above, enmity is not denied. 21. Learned Counsel for the appel lants argued that the murder of Sughar Singh and Gajju could not be the motive for the present murder. The argument is not acceptable. Sughar Singh was the father of accused Nirbhai Singh. Gajju was a close relation of accused Shiv Pal Singh. After the acquittal of the accused persons in the said murder case, the feeling of revenge must have revived. Likewise, only three years before the occurrence, Baldeo Singh had been fired by accused Abhai Raj Singh. He was convicted by the Court of Sessions. He filed an appeal in this Court which was dismissed. Abhai Raj Singh had undergone the imprisonment. Naturally, he must be having strong motive to take the revenge of his conviction and sentence. Proceedings under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. are generally launched only when there was strong enmity between the par ties and when the police apprehended the danger of breach of peace. Proceedings under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. were also pending on that fateful day. Both the par ties were at daggers drawn. 22. Proceedings under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. are generally launched only when there was strong enmity between the par ties and when the police apprehended the danger of breach of peace. Proceedings under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. were also pending on that fateful day. Both the par ties were at daggers drawn. 22. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the old murders could not be the motive for the murder of Rajendra Singh and Mangal Singh, but from the admitted facts enumerated above, it is abundantly clear that both the complainant side and the accused side were at daggers drawn and, therefore, there was strong motive for the murder of the deceased and the motive in this case is proved. 23. It was argued by Shri A. D. Giri, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for Shiv Pal Singh that there was absolutely no motive for Shiv Pal Singh to have joined hands with other accused persons. Shiv Pal Singh was armed with a gun. He fired at Mangal Singh, who caught hold of his gun and then accused Pritam Singh assaulted by his Pharsa at the head of Mangal Singh. The post- mortem report shows a number of injuries at the skull and face and these injuries belie the allegations of the prosecution. Secondly, Shiv Pal Singh was not a stranger to the accused persons who could not have joined hands with them. 24. The argument is not acceptable. Gajju Singh, who was murdered earlier, was the real sc. of the Buwa (fathers sister) of Shiv Pal Singh. Although, Shiv Pal Singh was not the real brother of Gajju Singh, but he was like a brother of Gajju Singh and, therefore, he had got every motive to take revenge of the murder of Gajju Singh. It is true that there was no allegation in the F. I. R. that there was a gang of these accused persons as stated by P. W. 1, Harpal Singh at the last page of his statement dated 26-10-1977, but this fact has come in the cross-examination of P. W. 1, Har Pal Singh. In the cross-examination, there was a suggestion that Shiv Pal Singh was Khandani of accused Pritam Singh and Shiv Pal Singh used to bear enmity with the complainant side, but there was nothing on the record to prove this suggestion. In the cross-examination, there was a suggestion that Shiv Pal Singh was Khandani of accused Pritam Singh and Shiv Pal Singh used to bear enmity with the complainant side, but there was nothing on the record to prove this suggestion. It is true that Shiv Pal Singh was not a party in the proceedings under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. but still he had got every motive to join hands with other accused persons as dis cussed above. 25. As regards F. I. R. in this case, it was prompt one. The occurrence took place on 19-7-1974 at 8. 00 a. m. and the F. I. R. was lodged at 10. 15 a. m. while the police station was at a distance of 9 miles, that is, about 14 kms. Two persons of the complainants side had been killed. The age of the complainant was about 60years. He left the dead bodies on the spot in the Supurdagi of the villagers and, thereafter he proceeded to the police station and lodged the F. I. R. The F. I. R. was verbal and contained the narration as given by the complainant. In the circumstances, the F. I. R. was prompt one. 26. Learned Counsel for the appel lants argued that the complainant had ad mitted that he was not given the copy of the chick report at the police station. It was probably for the reason that the F. I. R. was not recorded by that time. It is to be noticed that the F. I. R. lodged was verbal one. It was further argued that the injured persons, who had gone to the police Sta tion, were not immediately examined at the police station after the F. I. R. It may be noticed that two persons had been killed and therefore the police had preferred to visit the scene of occurrence immediately so that the dead bodies etc. might not have been removed. The injured persons were not so seriously injured that there was any danger to their life. Therefore, if they had not been examined at the police station immediately before proceeding to the spot, it cannot be said that the F. I. R. was ante-timed or that false injuries had been manufactured. The F. I. R. in this case was neither delayed nor ante-timed. Therefore, if they had not been examined at the police station immediately before proceeding to the spot, it cannot be said that the F. I. R. was ante-timed or that false injuries had been manufactured. The F. I. R. in this case was neither delayed nor ante-timed. There is also nothing to show that the F. I. R. does not inspire confidence. 27. The weapons of assault are said to belathi, ballam andpharsa. All the injuries of the injured were mainly by lathi. The injuries of the deceased were that of Bal lam and Pharsa. The fire was made but it did not hit. Rajendra Singh deceased had got three contusions. The F. I. R. also shows that Pritam Singh and Abhai Raj armed with Pharsa, Niranjan Singh and Nirbhai Singh armed with Ballam and Devi Dayal armed with lathi and Shiv Pal Singh armed with a gun assaulted Rajender Singh. It is true that there is one lacerated wound to Mangal Singh deceased and it is not said that any lathi injury was caused to him. It may be noticed that where two persons were being beaten mercilessly by Ballam and Pharsa, some injuries by blunt object in which Ballam and Pharsa were em bedded were also possible. Therefore, it is clear that the injuries to the victims had been caused by Ballam, Pharsa and Lathi. 28. The place of occurrence has not been disputed in this case. The Investigating Officer had recovered the dead bodies of the victims from the spot where they were said to have been murdered. It was not the case of the accused persons that the murder took place at some other place and the dead bodies were planted at the place from where they were said to have been recovered. 29. The main argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the witnesses did not see the occurrence and their presence on the spot was not proved. It was further argued that had the injured persons been present, they would have also been killed. What was there in the mind of the accused persons might have been better known to them. Har Pal Singh was an old man. Besides, he was the father of Rajender Singh and uncle of Mangal Singh. It was further argued that had the injured persons been present, they would have also been killed. What was there in the mind of the accused persons might have been better known to them. Har Pal Singh was an old man. Besides, he was the father of Rajender Singh and uncle of Mangal Singh. The accused persons might have thought that the father should be left and the son and nephew should be murdered so that Har Pal Singh should have slow death by feeling the pinch and agony of the death of his son and nephew. The thrust of blood might have also been satisfied after the death of two young men. They might have also thought it proper to have left the other persons after having taught them a lesson by inflicting injuries. However, at this stage we have to see whether the presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence was probable and was proved or not and in this context one has to see the attending circumstances particularly the strong facts whether the complainant side had a plausible cause to visit Hamirpur or not on the date of occurrence. The specific case of the prosecution was that of the fateful day a date was fixed in the case under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. The occurrence was of 19th July, 1974. It is true that on the ac cused side Pritam Singh, Nirbhai Singh, Abhai Raj Singh and Devi Dayal were party in the aforesaid case and accused Shiv Pal Singh was not a party in the aforesaid case. The accused persons had also to attend the case. On the com plainant side, Atbal Singh, Maboo Singh, Baldeo Singh, Samiullah and Mirgraj were party to the proceedings. It is known fact that in such proceedings unless the atten dance is exempted every person has to attend the Court. Therefore, it was fully probable, natural and necessary for Rajender Singh, Harpal Singh and Mangal Singh to go to Hamirpur to attend the case where it was pending. If after the occur rence, the parties could not reach the Court and their attendance was got ex empted that would not make out a case that the parties were not going to Hamir pur. Naturally, when two persons had been killed, no body would have liked to go to attend the case. If after the occur rence, the parties could not reach the Court and their attendance was got ex empted that would not make out a case that the parties were not going to Hamir pur. Naturally, when two persons had been killed, no body would have liked to go to attend the case. There was no suggestion that on 19-7-1974 there was no such date fixed in the case pending in Hamirpur. It has specifically been written in the F. I. R. that on the fateful day Harpal Singh, his son Rajender Singh and Mangal Singh were going to Hamirpur to attend the case. It has specifically come in the last line of the statement of the complainant recorded on 14-10-1974 that Samiullah was not going alongwith them because on that par ticular day he was not in the village instead he was in Hamirpur. If Samiullah was not in the village and if his son Naseem was going alongwith the complainant and other persons to attend the case of his father, there was nothing unusual or un natural in it. The complainant further stated that Baldeo and Babboo were in Hamirpur since one day before the date of occurrence because they had a case in con solidation court and the attendance of Atbal Singh had been exempted. There fore, Baldeo, Baboo, Atbal and Samiullah were not going along with the com plainant. 30. P. W 2, Lalloo specifically stated that he was going to Hamirpur to take medicines for his son. He was cross-ex amined in respect of his going to Hamirpur on that particular date and he stated that he had purchased medicines at Sumerpur and came back to his house. He admitted that although medicines were available in his village as well, but that was sold at higher price. The name of his son was Sant Ram and he was ill for the last 15-days of the occurrence. His illness was that of motilal. His age was 12 to 13 years. He was studying in a school of the village in those days. He further stated that due to his illness he was not gong to school for the last 15-days. 31. Ram Saran, a teacher of the school of the village, was examined as D. W. 1. His illness was that of motilal. His age was 12 to 13 years. He was studying in a school of the village in those days. He further stated that due to his illness he was not gong to school for the last 15-days. 31. Ram Saran, a teacher of the school of the village, was examined as D. W. 1. He stated that in July, 1974 Sant Ram was studying in Class III and he was regularly attending the school in those days. No judicial notice of this fact can be taken that the attendance in the school is not correctly recorded still this is a known fact that in July when the schools re-open no teacher is very particular in teaching students or taking their attendance. The attendance is taken as a matter of routine. D. W. 1 Ram Saran was cross-examined regarding the attendance of Ram Prakash Nai on whose attendance a slip was pasted. The witness was unable to explain why a slip was pasted on the attendance of Ram Prakash Nai. This may go to show that attendance is not correctly recorded in the school. 32. In our opinion, no body will un necessarily make his son ill to support the prosecution story. If the son of Lalloo (P. W. 2) was not ill, he could have given hundred of reasons for going to Sumerpur or for being present at the scene of occur rence. No body unnecessarily tells about the illness of his kith and kin with whom he has love and affection. One fears that pretended illness may cause actual illness. At any rate, Lalloo was also an injured witness. We will discuss about his injury later on, but his going in the same truck alongwith the complainant side was wholly probable and natural and it is proved from his statement, even assuming certain facts stated by him to be incorrect. 33. The going of other witness Chandrapal (P. W. 3) alongwith the com plainant side in the same truck was also probable in view of the fact that he had been convicted for two years R. I. in a case under Section 326 I. P. C. He had filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 326 I. P. C. and a date was fixed in the said appeal on that particular day. There was a date for hearing in the said appeal. It is true that a compromise had been filed in the said appeal, but the wit ness specifically stated that the com promise had not yet been verified and no order had been passed on the said com promise. Since the appeal was still pending and Chandrapal was on bail, he was duty bound to attend the case till the com promise had been verified and a finding of acquittal had been recorded in his favour. He further stated that he could reach the Court at 3. 30 p. m. and by that time his Counsel Shri Vijai Bahadur Singh had got his attendance exempted. At any rate, no paper had been filed in the teeth of this statement that the complainant, the deceased persons and Chandrapal (P. W. 3) had got no business to go to Hamirpur to attend their cases pending in the Court. In the circumstances, the going of the com plainant, the deceased and the witnesses to Hamirpur on 19-7-1974 was fully probable and is proved beyond any shadow of doubt. 34. Now the question is of the going of the accused persons to Hamirpur on the date fixed in the case under Section 107/117, Cr. PC. Accused Pritam Singh, Nirbhai Singh, Abhai Raj Singh and Devi Dayal were party in the aforesaid case. They fully knew the date fixed in the case. Therefore, they must have known that the complainant side had to go to Hamirpur to attend the case. No other route to Hamir pur was suggested other than through vil lage Lalpura. If it was fully known to the accused persons that the complainant and the deceased had to go to Hamirpur, they could have easily met them in the way, had they any plan to kill them. They had got every reason to believe that the complainant and the victims had to go to Hamirpur to attend the case. Thus, the presence of the complainant, the deceased and the witnesses as well as the accused on the spot was fully probable and is estab lished from the evidence on the record. 35. Besides the two deceased, there were three injured namely Harpal Singh, Lalloo and Naseem. The injury reports are exhibits 5, 6 and 4 respectively. Naseem had been examined at 11. 00 a. m. Lalloo had been examined at 11. 35. Besides the two deceased, there were three injured namely Harpal Singh, Lalloo and Naseem. The injury reports are exhibits 5, 6 and 4 respectively. Naseem had been examined at 11. 00 a. m. Lalloo had been examined at 11. 50 a. m. and Har-pal Singh had been examined at 11. 30 a. m. on 19-7-1974. 36. It was argued that if Harpal Singh was there at the place of occurrence and the accused had any motive to kill the complainant side why they had caused only one simple injury to Harpal Singh. It was also argued that the injury was got manufactured. The injury sustained by Harpal Singh was well defined, regular one and red in colour at the dorsal aspect of the left hand. No body will falsely manufacture such an injury. We have already observed that no body can sit in the mind of the accused why they left Harpal Singh alive but at any rate Lalloo had got no reason to get false injury manufactured on him to be a witness in the case. Merely because he was a co-witness in a case for Rajender Singh is no ground to discard his tes timony. At least his presence on the scene of occurrence and his medical examination by the doctor at 11. 50 a. m. is fully estab lished. 37. As regards injured witness Naseem, his injuries were such which could not have been manufactured and fabricated only to become a witness in the case. His injury was on the head. No body will falsely manufacture an injury on the head only to become a witness in the case. The case of the witnesses was that they asked the accused persons not to kill the victims whereupon accused Devi Dayal satisfied his thrust by giving a lathi blow to them. This is very natural statement. 38. The statements of all the three eye-witnesses are fully natural, probable and believable and they do not create any doubt in the prosecution story. 39. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that there was one F. I. R. at police station Bewar by one Bus Conductor that two persons were lying dead on the road in the way. The said report has not been produced in the Court. There is one G. D. entry Ext. 39. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that there was one F. I. R. at police station Bewar by one Bus Conductor that two persons were lying dead on the road in the way. The said report has not been produced in the Court. There is one G. D. entry Ext. Ka-31, which shows that the Bus Conductor informed at police station Bewar that two persons had been killed and two police constables had been deputed to the place of occurrence. The Bus Conductor was not an eye-wit ness. He only saw the dead bodies. In this particular case, the police station was Sumerpur where the complainant went and lodged the F. I. R. at 10. 15 a. m. itself. The information given by the Bus Conduc tor at the police station Bewar will not go to show that no body had seen the occur rence and the dead bodies were lying un claimed. 40. Now we will discuss the main ar guments advanced by Shri A. D. Giri and Shri S. S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellants. 41. It was argued that the injuries to the injured witnesses were false and fabri cated. As has been discussed above from the evidence on the record this argument is ruled out. It was also argued that no witness of village Lalpura where the oc currence took place had come forward to support the prosecution story. It has come in the statements of P. W. 1, Harpal Singh and P. W. 2, Lalloo respectively that village Swasa was at a distance of two miles from village Mawai Jaar and the distance from Swasa to Lalpura was three miles. Thus, the distance from village Mawai Jaar to village Lalpura was five miles. Two mur ders had taken place. The other three per sons had been injured. No unconcerned person of village Lalpura would have liked to be involved in the proceeding. If the statements of Harpal Singh, Lalloo and Naseem were believable, there was no need of multiplicity of examination and cross- examination of more witnesses when it had been proved by the statements of three eye-witnesses that the victims had been killed by the accused persons. 42. There was also recovery of Pharsa at the pointing of accused Abhai Raj Singh and Pnarsa and Ballam at the pointing of accused Pritam Singh. 42. There was also recovery of Pharsa at the pointing of accused Abhai Raj Singh and Pnarsa and Ballam at the pointing of accused Pritam Singh. The learned Ses sions Judge has dealt with the recovery of these weapons in detail. 43. It was argued that the accused persons had surrendered on 24-7-1974 and moved an application that the police was inimical and might create false recovery. On 25-7-1974 the police had taken remand of the accused persons and on 27-7-1974 recoveries of the weapons were made. When the accused persons had committed such a ghastly crime and could not have been arrested and surrendered themselves through lawyers, they would have certainly moved such an application with the help of local lawyers in Peshbandi. 44. P. W. 7, Shiv Charar- Singh was a public witness of the recovery of Pharsa at the pointing of accused Abhai Raj and P. W. 8, Kali Charan alias Jodha was a witness of the recovery of Pharsa and Ballam at the pointing of accused Pritam Singh. In our opinion, these recoveries do not appear to be false and fabricated. Even if it is held that these weapons were not sent for ex amination and could not have been con nected with the crime in question still the first part of the prosecution story that in presence of the witnesses the victims had been killed is not at all false. 45. It was also argued that the Inves tigating Officer had not written at whose pointing he had prepared the site plan. This may be the mistake of the Investigat ing Officer, but the place of occurrence has not at all been disputed. It was not alleged that the murders had taken place at some other place and the dead bodies were planted at the place from where the dead bodies had been recovered. 46. It was also argued that the Inves tigating Officer had not examined the owner and the driver of the truck. We have perused the case diary. On 21-7-1974 the Investigating Officer had specifically ex amined Udai Bhan Singh who was the owner and driver of the truck in question. No evidence whatsoever had been given by the accused persons that the victims and the witnesses had not been traveling the said truck on that particular day. We have perused the case diary. On 21-7-1974 the Investigating Officer had specifically ex amined Udai Bhan Singh who was the owner and driver of the truck in question. No evidence whatsoever had been given by the accused persons that the victims and the witnesses had not been traveling the said truck on that particular day. It is true that the owner and driver of the truck had not been examined in the Court but it is also not the case of the accused side that the complainant, victims and the witnesses were going on foot from village Mawai Jaar to Hamirpur. 47. It was further argued that the fire of Shiv Pal-Singh did not hit Mangal Singh. He had loaded the gun but did not fire. It was also argued that had Shiv Pal Singh been there at the place of occurrence, he would have definitely made another fire if his first fire had missed. The first fire did not hit. Thereafter, the gun was caught hold of by Mangal Singh and before it could have been loaded, Mangal Singh and Rajender Singh had already been killed by other accused persons. It was argued that when Shiv Pal Singh had loaded his gun again, why he had not fired. No body can sit in the mind of a criminal. Shiv Pal Singh must have been knowing better why he had not fired. He might have thought that one or two cartridges should be kept intact to ward off any counter attack by the com plainant side or the village mob. 48. It was argued that Tickli, Chharra, empty cartridges etc. were not recovered from the spot. The days were of July. Two murders had taken place. Several persons must have assembled at the place of occur rence. The possibility that the tickli, chhar-ra, empty cartridges had been lost under the foot steps of the persons assembled there, cannot be ruled out or the same might have been taken away by the accused persons themselves. The fire was only one. 49. Two murders had taken place. Several persons must have assembled at the place of occur rence. The possibility that the tickli, chhar-ra, empty cartridges had been lost under the foot steps of the persons assembled there, cannot be ruled out or the same might have been taken away by the accused persons themselves. The fire was only one. 49. It was argued that according to the prosecution case, when the first fire missed, then the gun of Shiv Pal Singh had been caught hold of by Mangal Singh, but in the statement of P. W. 1, Harpal Singh it has come that the gun of Shiv Pal Singh was caught hold by Mangal Singh before the fire was made. We do not find any con tradiction in such statement. If there was minor contradiction in the statements of the witnesses, that will not affect the veracity of the statements of the witnesses. 50. Regarding accused Devi Dayal, it was argued that he was having a lathi. It was not the case that Devi Dayal attacked Mangal Singh. It was the definite case of the prosecution that Devi Dayal attacked Rajender Singh. There was one lacerated wound on the person of Mangal Singh. It was argued that it might have been in flicted only by some blunt portion of the Pharsa or the Ballam. It was not necessary that the injuries to Mangal Singh should have been that of lathi. While inflicting injury by blunt portion of Pharsa and lathi, such injury might have been caused. It was specifically stated by all the witnesses that Devi Dayal injured Harpal Singh, Naseem and Lalloo. 51. After clear cut appreciation of the evidence on the record, we find nothing to discard the evidence of the witnesses. There is clinching evidence on the record that all the accused persons had taken active part in killing the victims and caus ing injuries to the witnesses. 52. P. W. 3, Chandrapal Singh was a resident of village Kumhupur. It was at a distance of 7 miles from village Mawai Jaar. There was no question of his giving false statement in the case. Naseem could not have been examined in the case, as he had gone hostile. 52. P. W. 3, Chandrapal Singh was a resident of village Kumhupur. It was at a distance of 7 miles from village Mawai Jaar. There was no question of his giving false statement in the case. Naseem could not have been examined in the case, as he had gone hostile. It is true that for that reason he could not have been withheld by the prosecution, but there was no need of repetition of evidence when three wit nesses examined in the case were fully believable witnesses. 53. It was argued that certain persons of village Lalpura had got enmity with the victims and they might have killed the vic tims. The occurrence had taken place in day time at 8. 00 a. m. The witnesses had been injured by the accused persons. They had seen the occurrence. The victims had nothing to do in village Lalpura to go in the night. Therefore, it cannot be argued that on account of enmity with certain persons in village Lalpura the victims had been killed by unknown assailants. The going of the witnesses on a truck was not improbable particularly when they had to be at Hamirpur after changing conveyan ces at several places. The two independent witnesses are fully believable witnesses. There is nothing to disbelieve them. 54. We have examined the judgment recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. We do not find any reason to differ from his findings. When the eye-witnesses are believable and reliable witnesses and the occurrence was of the day, time merely for minor contradictions the case cannot be thrown away. There was strong motive for the murder of the two victims. The first information report was prompt and natural one. The place of occurrence is not at all disputed. The mode and manner of assault has been proved by the witnesses. There are certain minor contradictions which do not go to the root of the case. These minor contradictions were bound to occur when the witnesses were not tutored and had not been produced after looking video film. Some doubt has been created regarding the recovery of weapons of assault, but that suspicious recovery in itself does not falsify the main part of the prosecution story. Only this part of the evidence can be ignored if the recovery of weapons and its use in the crime is not proved. 55. Some doubt has been created regarding the recovery of weapons of assault, but that suspicious recovery in itself does not falsify the main part of the prosecution story. Only this part of the evidence can be ignored if the recovery of weapons and its use in the crime is not proved. 55. In view of the above discussions, the appeal has got no merits and is liable to be dismissed. 56. The appeal is dismissed. The ap pellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentences awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. 57. A copy of this order shall be sent to the CJ. M. Hamirpur within a week for compliance of this order. Appeal dismissed. .