Judgment P.C. Jain, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 15-3-1995 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar whereby the accused-appellant Satnamsingh was held guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case, as unfolded at the trial, may be stated as follows. On 26-8-1992 at about 10.55 P.M. deceased Munir Khan was coming from the side of the Police Station and was going to his house on his Priya Scooter. He was proceeding on the extreme left of the Road. When he reached near Anand Chhabra’s Clinic on the Suratgarh-Bikaner Road, the accused who was waiting for Munir Khan near the Office of the Public Works Department Majdoor Union, sat on his Truck No. RSC 1313 and drove it behind Shri Munir Khan at a very fast speed. He wanted to intentionally crush Munir Khan under the truck. With that object, he drove the truck and came to the left of Munir Khan and hit him with great force from behind. He swerved the truck in such a way that Munir Khan was trapped under the right wheel. Munir Khan was ran over and crushed by the above Vehicle. After running over Munir Khan, the vehicle of the accused hit the stone slabs marked ‘BG’ as shown in the Site Plan Exhibit-P5. Therefrom the accused took a right turn and after crossing the road hit the electricity pole ‘F. The electricity Pole was damaged. The truck then stopped. The accused immediately alighted from the truck and fled towards CSF Farm. This occurrence was witnessed by PW. 4 Pradeep Kumar who happened to pass through the above road while going to his house from the Market. 3. After the above incident, many persons including PW. 8 Saleem, PW. 6 Riazuddin and PW. 5 Mangilal assembled there. PW. 1 Pradeep Kumar saw a jeep coming towards that site. He intercepted the same and with the help of other persons lifted Munir Khan in seriously injured condition and rushed to the Govt. Hospital which was not far away from that place. After reaching the Hospital, the Doctor On Duty examined Munir Khan and declared him dead. PW. PW. 1 Pradeep Kumar saw a jeep coming towards that site. He intercepted the same and with the help of other persons lifted Munir Khan in seriously injured condition and rushed to the Govt. Hospital which was not far away from that place. After reaching the Hospital, the Doctor On Duty examined Munir Khan and declared him dead. PW. 4 Pradeep Kumar then went to the Police Station, Suratgarh and lodged a written FIR Exhibit-P4 at 11.15 P.M. 4. On receipt of this report, PW. 10 A.S.I. Ramsingh registered a case under Section 304-A, IPC and handed over the same for investigation to PW. 15 Om Prakash. Circle Inspector. PW. 15 Om Prakash reached the Hospital and from there came to the place of the occurrence. He deputed Police Constables for guarding the site. Nothing more could be done on that night. 5. It is alleged that the accused was waiting for Munir Khan who usually goes to his house from that route. PW. 8 Saleem and PW. 6 Riazuddin were in the vicinity of the place of the occurrence because they came to take betel from the Betel Vendor near Pavan Misthan Bhandar. They observed that the accused was standing near the above truck and his movements betrayed that he was anxiously waiting for somebody. As soon as he saw Munir Khan coming on his scooter, he occupied the driver’s seat, started the truck and hit Munir Khan from behind. PW. 5 Mangilal happened to pass through that road while going to his house. When the truck stopped he was very near to the truck and recognised the accused getting out of the vehicle and fleeing towards the farm. 6. On 27-8-1992 at about 7.300 A.M., PW. 15 Om Prakash went to the site and got the photographs Exhibit-P 7, 8, 21 to 25 taken by the Photographer. He seized the above truck as well as the damaged scooter on which Munir Khan was proceeding. He prepared the Site Plan Exhibit-P5 in the presence of PW. 1 Pradeep Kumar, Mukanaram and Rajendrasingh. He also prepared the Site. Inspection Memo Exhibit-P.5-A. In Exhibit-P-5A he has shown the Suratgarh-Bikaner Road by No.’ 1’. The Kutchha road has been shown on both the sides of the above main road by Nos. ‘2’ and ‘3’. On the western side of the road, shops have been shown. 1 Pradeep Kumar, Mukanaram and Rajendrasingh. He also prepared the Site. Inspection Memo Exhibit-P.5-A. In Exhibit-P-5A he has shown the Suratgarh-Bikaner Road by No.’ 1’. The Kutchha road has been shown on both the sides of the above main road by Nos. ‘2’ and ‘3’. On the western side of the road, shops have been shown. At place ‘A’, the accused hit Munir Khan by bringing his truck on the left of Munir Khan. He found lot of blood at place “A”. According to his Site Inspection Memo, the scooter was proceeding on their correct side of the road. He has shown the movements of the truck by arrows. He also found marks of tyres of the truck at place ‘B’. Stone slabs and the bricks were damaged by the wheel of the truck. The scooter of Munir Khan was lying at place “C”. The electricity pole “E” was substantially damaged when the truck hit it. He found that the road lights were op. The Truck was found standing at Place ‘D’. The diesel tank of the truck was damaged and the diesel spilled all over the road. There was a hole in the diesel tank. It appeared that the scooter stand got stuck beneath the truck and it pierced the tank. The width of the road was 20 feet. No marks showing that the accused applied brake of the Truck were found. 7. After a thorough examination of the site, the Investigating Officer was convinced that it was not a mere accident. It appeared that the accused intentionally crushed Munir Khan by driving his Truck to the left of the Scooter in such a way that Munir Khan was trapped under the right wheel of the Truck. He did not stop the Truck and the pelvic bone of Munir Khan was crushed. He further concluded that the accused obviously abandoned the vehicle because the diesel drained off the tank on account of the hole caused by the stand on the scooter. He, therefore, converted the offence from Section 304-A, IPC to Section 302, IPC. 8. The above incident created law and order problem in the Town and therefore, the Investigating Officer had to take necessary steps for maintaining law and order till the dead body of Munir Khan was buried. This took the whole day. The material witnesses viz., PW. 4 Pradeep Kumar, PW. 5 Mangilal, PW. 8. The above incident created law and order problem in the Town and therefore, the Investigating Officer had to take necessary steps for maintaining law and order till the dead body of Munir Khan was buried. This took the whole day. The material witnesses viz., PW. 4 Pradeep Kumar, PW. 5 Mangilal, PW. 6 Riazuddin and PW. 8 Mohd. Saleem were examined on 28-8-1992. The postmortem examination of the dead body of Munir Khan was got conducted from PW. 14 Dr. Om Prakash on 27-8-1992 at 9.30 A.M. The postmortem report is Exhibit-P.20. 9. The only important point to be mentioned regarding the ante mortem injuries found on the person of Munir Khan is that according to PW. 14 Dr. Om Prakash, the pelvic bone was crushed as is revealed by injuries Nos. 1 and 2. Since the pelvic bone is the strongest bone in the body, he was of the opinion that such injuries could be caused if the deceased was run over by a heavy vehicle. It was also found as a result of investigation that the accused was highly aggrieved against Munir Khan because Munir Khan and other persons arbitrated in a dispute which the accused had with Mohansingh of Agra. It is alleged as a result of the above arbitration, Munir Khan undertook to make payment if Mohansingh failed to make the same to the accused. Mohansingh did not pay the amount. The accused, therefore, demanded the money from Munir Khan but the latter disowned his liability on the ground that he only offered his good offices to reconcile the matter but he never undertook to pay on behalf of said Mohansingh. The accused is alleged to have threatened Munir Khan. It is on account of this motive that the accused committed the murder of Munir Khan by crushing him under his truck. 10. After usual investigation, a challan was filed against the accused-appellant in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh and ultimately, the accused was committed to the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh Camp Suratgarh for trial. 11. Thelearned Addl. Sessions Judge framed the charge under Section 302, IPC against the accused but he pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of its case. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh Camp Suratgarh for trial. 11. Thelearned Addl. Sessions Judge framed the charge under Section 302, IPC against the accused but he pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, CrPC In his statement before the Court, the accused denied that Munir Khan ever participated in the reconciliation proceedings regarding the alleged dispute he had with Mohansingh. He further stated that at the time of accident, deceased was driving the scooter rashly and negligently and dashed against the right wheel of the truck. The Truck was swerved towards left but on account of the rash and negligent driving Munir Khan dashed his Scooter against the truck. He however, stated that he was not driving the truck but it was being driven by his brother Darshan. He has further alleged that the prosecution witnesses are all interested witnesses and related to Munir Khan. In his defence, he produced D. W. 1 Harbansh Lal, and his brother D. W. 2 Darshan. D. W. 1 Harbansh Lal denied to have any dispute with the accused regarding fish contract. D.W.2 Darshan had deposed about the above accident. His statement is that he was driving the Truck at that time and the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Scooter by Munir Khan. It was a case where Munir Khan dashed against the Truck. He was not at fault. 12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the following two points: 1. Whether the accused was the driver of Truck No. RSC 1313 at the time of accident? 2. Whether the accused intentionally hit Munir Khan with the object to commit his murder or was it was only an accident? 13. After considering the material evidence on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that it was accused Satnamsingh who was driving the Truck No. RSC 1313 at the time of accident. In this connection, the learned Addl. 2. Whether the accused intentionally hit Munir Khan with the object to commit his murder or was it was only an accident? 13. After considering the material evidence on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that it was accused Satnamsingh who was driving the Truck No. RSC 1313 at the time of accident. In this connection, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge observed that admittedly the accident occurred on that day; the Truck belonged to the accused; and that this fact was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused as to who was the Driver of the Truck at the relevant time and since the accused did not furnish any information in this regard, inference warranted by Section 106 of the Evidence Act was drawn against the accused. In this respect, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge also relied on the statement of PW. 5 Mangilal. However, he rejected the testimony of PW. 6 Riazuddin and PW. 8 Mohd. Saleem on the ground that both the witnesses gave verbatim statements Exs.D.3 and D-5 under Section 161, CrPC this is simply not possible because every witness will give a different version and the language and the style of narration would differ. He brushed aside the criticism levelled by the learned counsel for the accused that PW. 5 Mangilal was a chance witness and he should not be believed on account of his dubious subsequent conduct. It was alleged that PW. 5 Mangilal though present when PW. 4 Pradeep Kumar lifted injured Munir Khan in the Jeep, did not disclose the name of the Driver. He also went to the Hospital. Thereafter, he went to his house. It was a conduct not compatible with that of a natural witness. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge then examined the circumstances ‘under which this accident occurred and relying on the circumstantial evidence afforded by the site details concluded that it was not a mere accident but a well executed plan to commit the murder 6fMunir Khan. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor as also the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 15. Thelearned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant made a blistering attack on the prosecution evidence arid branded it as false, fabricated and unreliable. He contended that the learned Addl. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor as also the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 15. Thelearned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant made a blistering attack on the prosecution evidence arid branded it as false, fabricated and unreliable. He contended that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in relying on the testimony of PW. 5 Mangilal and also in drawing an inference against the accused by invoking the aid of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act that the accused was the Driver of the above Truck at the relevant time. The accused put up his case while cross-examining the prosecution witnesses by suggesting that the Truck was driven by his brother Darshan. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the most crucial and vital question requiring determination in this case is as to who was the Driver of the above Truck at the relevant time. 16. In this connection, the learned counsel made a scathing attack on the truthfulness and reliability of the material prosecution witnesses viz. PW. 5 Mangilal, PW. 6 Riazuddin and PW. 8 Mohd. Saleem. It was contended that a perusal of the FIR which was lodged within twenty minutes of the accident shows that PW. 4 Pradeep Kumar has not stated the name of any witness at the time of the accident. It is a very material omission which renders the testimony of PW. 5 Mangilal and PW. 8 Mohd. Saleem unreliable and false. PW. 4 Pradeep Kumar has indicated the presence of several persons at the place of the occurrence including PW. 5 Mangilal, PW. 6 Riazuddin and PW. 8 Mohd. Saleem in his statement given before the Court. Had it been correct, he would have definitely mentioned their names in the FIR. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge correctly discarded the testimony of PW. 8 Mohd. Saleem and PW. 6 Riazuddin who were only chance witnesses and the prosecution has produced them only to strengthen their case. .17. It was further contended that if the testimony of PW. 5 Mangilal is examined, it would be clear that this conduct immediately after the accident is abnormal and renders his testimony absolutely unreliable. 8 Mohd. Saleem and PW. 6 Riazuddin who were only chance witnesses and the prosecution has produced them only to strengthen their case. .17. It was further contended that if the testimony of PW. 5 Mangilal is examined, it would be clear that this conduct immediately after the accident is abnormal and renders his testimony absolutely unreliable. If he had seen the accused driving the above vehicle, he would have told to other persons but he only went to the house of the deceased and informed Noor Mohd. The Prosecution has not produced Noor Mohd. in the witness box. Thereafter, it is alleged that he told about this incident to PW. 9 Raja Mohd. son of the deceased when he reached Suratgarh from Jaipur. According to the statement of PW. 15 Om Prakash, the whole town was tense and agog with suspense. PW. 5 Mangilal still did not go to the police to inform about the identity of the Driver who drove the above vehicle on that day. The learned counsel led us through the statements of .PW. 5 Mangilal, PW. 9 Raja Mohd. and other witnesses to emphasise the point that the conduct of this witness is highly improbable, unnatural and unworthy of belief Learned counsel then referred to the statement of D.W. 2 Darshan who categorically stated that he was the Driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. He further stated that the accident occurred on account of rashness and negligence of Munir Khan who wanted to overtake the truck and in the process dashed against the right wheel of the Truck and was run over. Darshan tried his best to avoid the catastrophe but he failed because Munir Khan could not control his Scooter. 18. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also the learned counsel appearing for the complainant supported the Judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 19. Mr. D. S. Shishodia, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge analytically examined the testimony of all the material witnesses and placed reliance on the testimony of PW. 5 Mangilal after subjecting it to critical scrutiny applying the various checks available. He however differed with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge when he turned down the testimony of PW. 8 Saleem and PW. 6 Riazuddin. Sessions Judge analytically examined the testimony of all the material witnesses and placed reliance on the testimony of PW. 5 Mangilal after subjecting it to critical scrutiny applying the various checks available. He however differed with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge when he turned down the testimony of PW. 8 Saleem and PW. 6 Riazuddin. He submitted that even though the learned Addi. Sessions Judge discarded their evidence, this Court in appeal can make a reappraisal of their statements and take a different view. He referred to their statements and submitted that there presence at the place of the occurrence was so natural. Both the witnesses have stated that PW. 6 Riazuddin was returning from his sister’s house along with PW. 8 Mohd. Saleem after taking dinner. The house of his sister is about 500 feet away from the place of the occurrence. While returning, they went to take betel from the Vendor. At that time, they saw the accused standing near the Public Works Department Majdoor Union Office and the above Truck was standing there. They have clearly stated that from the movements of the accused, it was clear that he was anxiously waiting for something. They further stated that when the accused saw Munir Khan coming to that side on his scooter, he immediately occupied the Driver’s seat, started the truck at a very high speed and hit Munir Khan with great force from behind. They also went to the place of the occurrence. The accused, after hitting Munir Khan swerved the truck to the extreme left and after that he took a right turn and after crossing the main road dashed against the electric pole. The Truck came to a dead stop. The accused got down and fled away from the place of the occurrence. It was erroneous on the part of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to have discarded the testimony of these two witnesses merely on the ground that the statements of these two witnesses recorded under Section 161, CrPC were identical. If the Investigating Officer recorded the statement in that way, it was not legal to ignore their statements. It was erroneous on the part of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to have discarded the testimony of these two witnesses merely on the ground that the statements of these two witnesses recorded under Section 161, CrPC were identical. If the Investigating Officer recorded the statement in that way, it was not legal to ignore their statements. They can also not be termed as chance witnesses because they explained the reasons for their presence near the place of the occurrence to other persons because when Riazuddin told what he had witnessed, his elder brothers advised him not to open his mouth in order to avoid unnecessary trouble. Acting on the advice of his brothers, he did not tell about this accident to others. 20. The learned counsel has also submitted that it had been proved beyond all reasonable doubts that it was the accused who was driving the above vehicle. The accused was owner of the vehicle. PW. 2 Ramchandra was the Driver of the above vehicle of the accused but he has clearly stated that he left the job on 22-8-1992. Hence, it is clear that he was not in the employment of the accused at the relevant time. If there was no Driver, then who could drive the vehicle, the burden lay on the accused to have furnished the relevant information. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, has, therefore, correctly drawn an inference adverse to the accused. A reference was also made to the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313, CrPC In this statement, the accused gave a detailed description as to how the accident occurred and the language shows that the accused was stating the facts in first person. Abruptly he qualified the above statement by stating that the truck was being driven by his brother Darshan. D.W. 2 Darshan admittedly did not possess any driving licence. Hence, it was not possible that the accused would have asked his brother Darshan to take the vehicle to his Nobra. .21. The learned counsel then submitted that the accused had a motive to take revenge against Munir Khan. There was a dispute regarding some money matters between the accused and Mohan Singh. At the request of concerned parties Munir Khan and a few other persons accepted arbitration. .21. The learned counsel then submitted that the accused had a motive to take revenge against Munir Khan. There was a dispute regarding some money matters between the accused and Mohan Singh. At the request of concerned parties Munir Khan and a few other persons accepted arbitration. It is alleged that the accused held the view that after arbitration, if Mohansingh did not pay the amount, it was the duty of Munir Khan to make payment on his behalf The accused demanded money from Munir Khan but the latter refused on the ground that he only acted as Arbitrator and never undertook to make the payment on behalf of Mohansingh. Thereafter the accused threatened Munir Khan to take revenge. It was on account of this motive that he intentionally committed the murder by crushing Munir Khan under his Truck. Learned counsel conceded that there was a slight delay in recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC by the Investigating Officer. He explained that on account of this unfortunate incident, the whole town became tense and it created a law and order problem for the police. The Investigating Officer, therefore, devoted himself to .the maintenance of law and order and no progress was made in investigation till the burial of Munir Khan was over. The statements were, therefore, recorded on the morning of 28-8-1992. 22. Mr. Shishodia then referred to the site plan and submitted that the facts found at the site eloquently proved that it was not a mere accident but very cold and calculated act to commit the murder of Munir Khan. The accused was aware that Munir Khan normally goes from that way daily. He, therefore, knew that the accused would pass through that route on that night. The movement of the Truck was noticed by the Investigating Officer clearly revealed that the accused chased Munir Khan and took his vehicle to the right of Munir Khan and hit the Scooter in such a way that Munir Khan and the Scooter were trapped under the right front wheel of the Truck. Thereafter, the Truck went further towards the left and from there the accused swerved the ‘vehicle to the right arid after crossing the road, hit the electric pole. Thereafter, the Truck went further towards the left and from there the accused swerved the ‘vehicle to the right arid after crossing the road, hit the electric pole. The accused would have made his escape good with the vehicle but the diesel tank was damaged by the handle of the scooter that stuck under the truck and made a hole in the diesel tank. As a result of this damage of the diesel tank, diesel drained off the accused, therefore, could not move the truck further. He, therefore, left the truck. 9.23. In support of his contentions, Mr. Shishodia placed reliance on Kioshore Singh vs. State of Raj, 1985 Cri LR (Raj) 221, Sreedharan Satheesan vs. State of Kerala, 1995 CriLJ 1782 (Kerala), Pershadi vs. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 211 :(1957 CriLJ 328), State of Haryana vs. Manoj Kumar, AIR 1994 SC 147 :(1993 CriLJ 3839) and R. Payani vs. State, 1994 CriLJ 78 (Andh Pra). 24. We have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have also perused the record of the case. 25. At the very out set, we may state that it has not been denied even by the accused that on 26-8-1992 at about 10.55 P.M., the accident occurred. Munir Khan who was proceeding on his Scooter was run over by the Truck No. RSC 1313, as a result of which Munir Khan was seriously injured and shortly succumbed to his injuries. The vehicle involved was admittedly RSC 1313. 26. Themost important question that falls for determination in this case is whether the above vehicle was driven by the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has raised vehement arguments regarding this point. After a careful appraisal of the evidence on record as well as the circumstances of the case, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that it was accused Satnam Singh who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. 27. It has not been disputed that the accused was the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time. From the statement of PW. 2 Ramchandra, it is proved that previously the accused employed him as his driver. He, however, left the job on 22-8-1992. The accused, has not laid any other evidence to suggest that any other Driver in place of Ramchandra was employed by him. From the statement of PW. 2 Ramchandra, it is proved that previously the accused employed him as his driver. He, however, left the job on 22-8-1992. The accused, has not laid any other evidence to suggest that any other Driver in place of Ramchandra was employed by him. The defence version is that at the relevant time, the vehicle was driven by D.W. 2 Darshan Kumar, the brother of accused Satnamsingh. After going through the statement of D.W. 2 Darshan Kumar, we are not impressed by his statement that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant time Drashan Kumar has stated that he was not possessing any Driving Licence for Heavy vehicle. Hence, it is not likely that the accused could entrust the above vehicle to Darshan Kumar for keeping the same in his Nohara which was about 3 Kilometers far from the place of the occurrence. A perusal of the trend of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses shows that on behalf of the accused, it was not suggested that at the relevant time, the vehicle was being driven by D.W. 2 Darshan Kumar. We would like to refer to the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313, CrPC We would also like to reproduce the statement made by the accused in his own words: rd ?kVuk ds oDr dkQh rsth ls LdwVj pykrk gqvk vk;k o Vªd ds nkfgus rjQ vkxs ds Vk;j ls ysal u gksVdjk;kA Vªd us e`rd dks cpkus ds fy, cka;h rjQ dkVk ysfdu LdwVj dk cSus ds dkj.k e`rd Vªd ls Vdjk;k ,oa ,DlhMsaV gks x;kAß 28. From the tenor of the statement made by the accused, it can safely be presumed that it has been made by the accused treating himself to be Driver of the vehicle. The accused has described the manner in which the accident occurred. It appears that thereafter he realised his mistake and immediately stated “.. ..“ In our opinion, the above statement clearly shows that the accused unwittingly and indirectly admitted that he was driving the above vehicle. When he realised his culpability, he immediately added that the truck was being driven by his brother. 29. D. W. 2 Darshan Kumar admitted that he lodged the report Exhibit-P. 48 while surrendering the gun of the accused. When he realised his culpability, he immediately added that the truck was being driven by his brother. 29. D. W. 2 Darshan Kumar admitted that he lodged the report Exhibit-P. 48 while surrendering the gun of the accused. In Exhibit-P 48, at portion C to D. Darshan Kumar stated that the accident has been caused by his brother. This is a statement made by D.W. 2 Darshan Kumar and it is binding on the accused. This also shows that the accused was involved in the above accident. 30. Now we may refer to the ocular evidence on record. PW. 5 Mangilal has stated that on 26-8-1992, at about 10.30 PM he was going on foot from Railway Station Suratgarh to his house and when he reached near Chetan Cycle Works, he saw Munir Khan proceeding on a scooter. He was hit from behind by Truck No. RSC 1313, which was being driven by the accused. There was sufficient street light as well as illumination provided by adjoining shops. The accused immediately got down when the truck came to a halt and ran away. Since he was very near to the Truck, he recognised the accused. He has also stated that PW. 4 Pradeep Kumar, PW. 6 Riazuddin and PW. 8 Mohd. Saleem were there. Pradeep Kumar immediately lifted Munir Khan with the help of other persons and put him in a Jeep and brought him to the Hospital. It is correct that his statement was recorded after three days. He has further stated that he had no conversation with Pradeep Kumar. He only told about seeing of the accused to PW. 9 Raja Mohd., the son of Munir Khan, when he met at the time of burial procession. He has admitted that this was not stated in his police statement Ex.D.2. He also did not lodge any report of this incident. He, however, stated that immediately after the accident, he went to the house of Munir Khan and informed about the accident to Noor Mohd., the brother of Munir Khan. 1.31. It may be stated that the statement of all the material witnesses including PW. 5 Mangilal, PW. 8 Mohd. Saleem and PW. 6 Riazuddin were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 26-8-1992. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants levelled severe criticism for examining the material witnesses so late. We have gone through the statement of PW. 1.31. It may be stated that the statement of all the material witnesses including PW. 5 Mangilal, PW. 8 Mohd. Saleem and PW. 6 Riazuddin were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 26-8-1992. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants levelled severe criticism for examining the material witnesses so late. We have gone through the statement of PW. 15 Om Prakash, the Investigating Officer. He has categorically stated that on account of the above accident, whole town was in the grip of high tension and law and order problem became acute. He had, therefore, to devote his attention to the maintenance to law and order problem and the kept vigilance during burial procession. Hence he could not find time on 27-8-1992 for contacting the witnesses. However, as soon as he became free, he recorded the statements of the witnesses on 28-8-1992. In our opinion, the delay has been satisfactorily explained by the Investigating Officer PW. 15 Om Prakash. Thus, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not committed any mistake in placing reliance on the testimony of PW. 5 Mangilal. His presence has been shown by PW. 4 Pradeep Kumar in his statement Ex. D.1/A which was, recorded on 27-8-1992. It has not been shown how PW. 5 Mangilal was interested in the prosecution. His house is near the house of Munir Khan. Hence it is natural that he might be going to his house from that way at the time of the occurrence. 2.32. Thelearned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has submitted that the prosecution has not produced Noor Mohd. to corroborate the statement of PW. 5 Mangilal. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that since Noor Mohd. was not on good terms with Munir Khan, the prosecution did not like to produce him in the witness box. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that even in the FIR that was lodged by Pradeep Kumar, the names of witnesses viz., PW. 5 Mangilal, PW. 6 Riazuddin and PW. 8 Mohd. Saleem were not mentioned. If we notice the sequence of events, it would be clear that PW. 4 Pradeep Kumar acted promptly as soon as he saw the accident and summoned the Jeep and shifted Munir Khan to the Hospital without delay so that proper medical aid could be made available to the injured. 6 Riazuddin and PW. 8 Mohd. Saleem were not mentioned. If we notice the sequence of events, it would be clear that PW. 4 Pradeep Kumar acted promptly as soon as he saw the accident and summoned the Jeep and shifted Munir Khan to the Hospital without delay so that proper medical aid could be made available to the injured. Thereafter, when the Doctor declared him dead, he immediately went to the Police Station and lodged the FIR. This all shows that Pradeep Kumar was in lot of haste. Hence, it may be possible that he did not lodge the FIR in detail. 3.33. It is settled law that generally the names of the prosecution witnesses may be mentioned but the FIR is not the end all and be-all of the matter. Hence mere non-mention of the names of witnesses in the FIR is not by itself enough for disbelieving the prosecution story. We, therefore, hold that the testimony of the alleged eye witnesses viz. PW. 5 Mangilal. PW. 6 Riazuddin and PW. 8 Mohd. Saleem cannot be rejected merely because their names were not mentioned in the FIR. We have also stated the reasons why Pradeep Kumar could not lodge a detailed report. Of course, there are certain contradictions and omissions in the testimony of PW. 5 Mangilal but such lacunae also occur even in the testimony of honest witnesses. 4.34. Thelearned Addi. Sessions Judge has rejected the testimony of PW. 6 Riazuddin and PW. 8 Mohd. Saleem on the ground that their statements under Section 161 CrPC are verbatim. In our opinion, this was hardly a ground for discarding the testimony of these two witnesses. If the Investigating Officer has not correctly recorded the statements of these two witnesses, on that ground the testimony of these two witnesses cannot be rejected. We have to judge their testimony in a comprehensive manner. These two witnesses have stated that they saw the accused standing near the Office of Public Works Department Mazdoor Union by the side of the above truck. The accused gave the impression as if he was waiting for somebody. Thereafter, they saw Munir Khan going on a Scooter. The accused immediately boarded in the Truck and started to drive it very fast and, dashed against the scooter. As a result of the above accident. The accused gave the impression as if he was waiting for somebody. Thereafter, they saw Munir Khan going on a Scooter. The accused immediately boarded in the Truck and started to drive it very fast and, dashed against the scooter. As a result of the above accident. Munir Khan was completely run over by the right wheel and that Munir Khan was proceeding extreme on the left of the main road.. They also saw Pradeep Kumar shifting Munir Khan in a Jeep to the Hospital. They also saw PW. 5 Mangilal. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has submitted that these two witnesses saw the whole incident so closely but did not report the matter to any body after the accident and thus, they appear to be chance witnesses and hence their testimony is of no credence.