M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is directed by the four accused/appellants, namely, Abdul Haq, Sharafat Ali, Saeed Ahmad and Ansar against the judgment and order dated 28-3-1980 passed by Sri K. P. Sinha, VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S. T. No. 152 of 1979. There was one another accused Kamaluddin who has been acquitted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. Each of them has been convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 302/34 and 307/34, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment under S. 302/34, IPC and ten years rigorous imprisonment under S. 307/34, IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE life of one Niaz Ahmad was cut short in the incident on 12-9-1978 at about 8-30 a. m. and a girl Ahmadunnisan sustained gun shot injuries. The genesis of prosecution case is the written FIR lodged as P. S. Khakhreru, District Fatehpur by Kabool Alumad on 12-9-78 at 11 a. m. He is the brother of deceased Niaz Ahmad and father of the injured girl. The case of the prosecution, as culled out from the FIR and the evidence, was that on the fateful day at about 8-30 a. m. the informant was talking with Surajpal near his house in the room of Ekram Husain. Ishaq was drawing water from the nearby well. Niaz Ahmad was sitting in the verandah of his Baithaka. It was at that time that his enemies viz. , the present four appellants and Kamaluddin armed with guns came from the side of the door of one of them Abdul Haq. Abdul Haq challenged Niaz Ahmad and having said that he would not be spared and that the revenge would be taken by killing all the inmates of his family, he exhorted Sharafat to open fire. Sharafat opened fire from his gun on Niaz Ahmad and the latter sustained injury thereof on his ankle. Niaz Ahmad raised alarm. The informants daughter Ahmadunnisan came out from the house. The accused persons kept on firing at Niaz Ahmad. Ahmadunnisan fell upon Niaz Ahmad in order to save him. The accused Abdul Haq then instigated his companions to kill her too and he himself fired on her. As a result, she sustained gun shot injuries. Witnesses Ishaq. Niaz Ahmad raised alarm. The informants daughter Ahmadunnisan came out from the house. The accused persons kept on firing at Niaz Ahmad. Ahmadunnisan fell upon Niaz Ahmad in order to save him. The accused Abdul Haq then instigated his companions to kill her too and he himself fired on her. As a result, she sustained gun shot injuries. Witnesses Ishaq. Surajpal and Hisamuddin also challenged the accused persons who then went back by the route through which they had come. Niaz Ahmad died at the spot. There was old enmity between two sides. In 1976 accused Abdul Haq had received gun shot injury. The informant and the deceased were implicated as accused of that case but they were acquitted by the Court. ( 3 ) A case under Ss. 147/148/307/302, IPC was registered which was investigated by P. W. 6 S. O. Sheo Kumar Singh. At the trial, the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad and P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan as eye-witnesses. Dr. Som Sharma who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Niaz Ahmad was examined as P. W. 3 Cr. J. S. Roy was examined as P. W. 5 who had examined the injuries of P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan. P. W. 4 Munir Ahmad was examined as scribe of the FIR and P. W. 6 S. O. Sheo Kumar Singh as I. O. of the case who formally proved the various documents also. ( 4 ) IT would be proper to set forth below the outcome of the post-mortem over the dead body of Niaz Ahmad, before proceeding further. As per the post-mortem report Ext. Ka-2, the following ante-mortem injuries were found :1. One gun shot wound of entrance 1/2" x 1/4" x scalp deep on the left side head 4" above the eyebrow. Margins were inverted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 2. Six gun shot wounds of entrance varying in size from 1/2" to 1/4" in an area of 6" x 2" on the back of head. Two gun shots skull cavity deep and rest 4 only scalp deep. Margins were inverted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 3. One gun shot wound of exit1/4" x 1/4" x whole neck deep through and through on the right side neck 11/2" below the angle of mandible. Margins everted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 4. Two gun shots skull cavity deep and rest 4 only scalp deep. Margins were inverted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 3. One gun shot wound of exit1/4" x 1/4" x whole neck deep through and through on the right side neck 11/2" below the angle of mandible. Margins everted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 4. One gun shot wound of exist of 1/2" x 1/4" x skull deep on the right temple. Margins were everted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 5. Four gun shot wounds of entrance each 1/4" x 1/4" x neck deep on the left side neck in an area of 5" x 1" in a straight line placed vertically 11/2" behind the ear. Margins were inverted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 6. One gun shot wound of entrance 1/4" x 1/4" muscle deep on the outer aspect of left 1/3 of left arm. Margins were inverted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 7. Two gun shot wounds of entrance each 1/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the inner aspect of lower 1/3 of right arm 1/2" apart. Margins were inverted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 8. One gun shot wound of entrance 1/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the medial aspect of upper 1/3 of right forearm. Margins were inverted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 9. One abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" with scab found on the back of right elbow. 10. One abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" with scab found on the inner aspect of middle 1/3rd of right forearm. 11. One gun shot wound of entrance 1/4" x 1/4" x chest cavity deep on the epigastric region in between the coastal margins. Margins were inverted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 11. One gun shot wound of exit 1/4" x 1/4" x chest cavity deep on the back of chest on left side 1" left K vertebral column in middle 1/3. Margins were everted and lacerated. No blackening was present. (This injury has been wrongly renumbered as 11 in post-mortem report)12. Eight gun shot wounds of entrance each 1/4" x 1/4" x chest cavity deep on the left side in an area of 7" x 6". Margins were inverted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 13. Margins were everted and lacerated. No blackening was present. (This injury has been wrongly renumbered as 11 in post-mortem report)12. Eight gun shot wounds of entrance each 1/4" x 1/4" x chest cavity deep on the left side in an area of 7" x 6". Margins were inverted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 13. Seven gun shot wounds of entrance 1/4" x 1/4" x chest cavity and abdominal cavity deep on the right side chest in an area of 8 X 6" in axillary plane. Margins were everted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 14. One gun shot wound of entry 1" x 1" x whole leg deep on the antero medial aspect of middle 1/3 of left leg. Circular in shape. Margins were inverted and lacerated. Bleeding was absent. 15. One gun shot wound of entry 1/4" x 1/4" x whole leg deep on the medial aspect of upper 1/3 of left leg. Margins were inverted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 16. One gun shot wound of exit 1/4" x 1/4" x whole leg deep on the back of left leg in upper 1/3. Margins were everted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 17. Four gun shot wounds of exit in an area of 2" x 2" on the back of middle 1/3 of left leg each 1/4" x 1/4" x through and through. Both bones of leg were fractured. Margins were everted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 18. One gun shot wound of entrance 1/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the outer aspect of upper 1/3 of left thigh, Margins were inverted and lacerated. No blackening was present. 19. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" with scab found on the back of middle 1/3 of right leg. ( 5 ) THE death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage because of ante-mortem injuries. The post-mortem was conducted on 13-9-1979 at 2 p. m. and the time of death was estimated as 11/2 days before. ( 6 ) AS per the injury report (Ext. Ka-4) of P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan, she had sustained the following injuries. 1. Gun shot wounds of entrance 1/3" x 1/3" x muscle deep on the outer part of the upper left arm, 1-3/4" below the left shoulder joint. No blackening or tattooing. Margins were inverted and lacerated. The blood clot was seen. 2. Ka-4) of P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan, she had sustained the following injuries. 1. Gun shot wounds of entrance 1/3" x 1/3" x muscle deep on the outer part of the upper left arm, 1-3/4" below the left shoulder joint. No blackening or tattooing. Margins were inverted and lacerated. The blood clot was seen. 2. Gun shot wound of entrance 1/3" x 1/3" x muscle deep on the upper and outer part of left arm 2" below injury No. 1 downward and backward. Rest as injury No. 1. 3. Gun shot wound of entrance 1/3" x 1/3" x not probed front of left side of abdomen 21/2" away at 3 Oclock to umbilicus. Rest as injury No. 1, advised X-ray. Kept under observation. 4. Gun shot wound of entrance 1/3" x 1/3" x muscle deep on front and upper part of the left thigh 9-1/2" above the left knee joint. Rest was as injury No. 1. 5. Gun shot wound of entrance 1/3" x 1/3" x muscle deep outer and lower part of the left thigh 41/2" above the left knee joint. Rest as injury No. 1. ( 7 ) THE medical examination was conducted on 12-9-1979 at about 4-15 p. m. ( 8 ) THE learned Additional Sessions judge acquitted the accused Kamaluddin, but convicted the present accused appellants under S. 302 read with S. 34, IPC for committing the murder of Niaz Ahmad and under S. 307 read with S. 34, IPC for attempting murder of Ahmadunnisan. He sentenced the accused-appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment. Aggrieved, the appellants have come up in appeal before this Court. ( 9 ) WE have heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants in support of the appeal and the learned A. G. A. from the side of the State in opposition of the appeal. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has first challenged the time of alleged occurrence and has submitted that it would not have taken place at about 8-30 a. m. as alleged by the prosecution. Instead, the incident must have taken place some time in the darkness of early dawn. It has been vehemently urged that the assailants could not be recognised and the appellants were simply implicated on account of enmity. Instead, the incident must have taken place some time in the darkness of early dawn. It has been vehemently urged that the assailants could not be recognised and the appellants were simply implicated on account of enmity. It may be stated here as passing reference that the enmity between two sides is an admitted fact with even murders having taken place on either side, allegedly by the other side. The last incident was of 1976 in which the accused Abdul Haq had received gun short injury. The present informant Kabool Ahmad and his brother Niaz Ahmad deceased with others were accused in that case. The case had ultimately resulted in acquittal. The learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that as per the prosecution evidence of P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad and P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan, the deceased had taken tea about 20-25 minutes before the incident, but no trace of any liquid was found in the stomach of the deceased at the time of post-mortem report. It has also been urged that as per post-mortem report of the deceased his bladder was full; gases were present in the small intestine; large intestine was full with faecal matter and gases. It has been reasoned that the condition of the bladder and intestines of the deceased indicates that he had not eased himself by the time of occurrence and it was unnatural. He would have eased himself by about 8-30 a. m. With this line of reasoning, we have been persuaded to hold that the incident took place in the darkness of early dawn when the deceased had not even eased himself. The argument is not at all acceptable. So far as the question of non-presence of tea liquid in the stomach of the deceased is concerned, suffice it to say that the tea being liquid diet could be easily digested in a very short time. Moreover, it is not known as to how much quantity of tea had been taken by the deceased about 20-25 minutes before the incident. No question was put to the Doctor either who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased as to for how much time contents of tea could be expected to be there in the stomach after consuming the same. No question was put to the Doctor either who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased as to for how much time contents of tea could be expected to be there in the stomach after consuming the same. It can also not be inferred from the condition of bladder and intestines found at the time of postmortem that the incident took place in the darkness of early dawn. It goes without saying that easing habits differ from man to man. One may also suffer from constipation. No question was put from the side of the defence to the eye-witnesses as to whether the deceased had gone to ease himself before the occurrence. From the presence of faecal matter and gases in the intestines of the deceased it could not be inferred that the incident had not taken place at about 8-30 a. m. The clear statement of P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad is there that after consuming tea about 20-25 minutes before the incident, his brother Niaz Ahmad was sitting on the cot and had smoked. Many persons are in the habit of easing themselves after taking tea and smoking. The point that we wish to emphasise is that it cannot be concluded on the basis of the condition of the stomach bladder and intestines of the deceased that the incident did not take place at about 8-30 a. m. and that it took place in the darkness of early hours. ( 11 ) THE second argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the manner of the happening of the incident as alleged by the prosecution is improbable. It has been contended that the nature of enmity of the accused with the deceased Niaz Ahmad and P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad was the same. In the series of the inimical actions between the two sides, the last incident was of 1976 in which the accused Abdul Haq was assaulted by some persons and Niaz Ahmad (deceased of this incident) and P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad were two of the accused of that incident who were prosecuted but were acquitted. The reasoning of the learned counsel for the appellants is that under these circumstances, the accused persons could not have spared P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad from injuring. It is a fact that no shot was fired on him as per prosecution case. The reasoning of the learned counsel for the appellants is that under these circumstances, the accused persons could not have spared P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad from injuring. It is a fact that no shot was fired on him as per prosecution case. Instead, Kabool Ahmads daughter was allegedly injured by shooting by the accused Abdul Haq when she came out of the house and fell upon her injured uncle Niaz Ahmad to cover him for the reason that P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad is not an injured, his presence at the spot has been doubted and it has been urged that he was not present at the scene of occurrence. We do not find any worth in this argument. No doubt, the nature of enmity between the accused and Niaz Ahmad deceased and P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad was the same and Kabool Ahmad is not an injured witness, but there is convincing reason as to why he escaped unhurt. At the time of incident P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad was talking with Suraj Pal in the room of Ekram Husain. The site plan (Ex. Ka-13) shows that the house of Ekram Husain was quite close to that of his own house. There is nothing on record to show that the accused had seen P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad in the room of Ekram Husain. The statement of P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad is that he was present in the room of Ekram Husain at the time of occurrence. The room of Ekram Husain in which P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad was talking with Suraj Pal has been shown by letter c in the site plan. It is just adjacent to his own house. Witness Kabool Ahmad could very well see the occurrence from the room of Ekram Husain, escaping unhurt because the accused had not detected his presence there. Thus, it is very well explained as to how P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad witnessed the incident without getting hurt himself at the hands of the accused persons. The fact that he did not receive any injury in the incident stands explained and it cannot be a ground to reject his testimony which otherwise inspires judicial confidence. ( 12 ) THE receipt of injury by P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan also does not create any improbability in the manner the incident took place. The fact that he did not receive any injury in the incident stands explained and it cannot be a ground to reject his testimony which otherwise inspires judicial confidence. ( 12 ) THE receipt of injury by P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan also does not create any improbability in the manner the incident took place. She had come out of the house and had fallen down on Niaz Ahmad with a view to cover him up and, therefore, she also incurred the wrath of the accused persons as she came in their way. ( 13 ) ANOTHER improbability relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is that P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad and P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan have both stated that the shot she received was the last, meaning thereby that Niaz Ahmad did not receive any shot thereafter 6 or 7 shots had been fired on him earlier thereto. The defence thrust on this aspect of the matter is that there could hardly be any occasion or necessity for the accused persons to have fired the last shot on P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan when they had already done their job by repeatedly raining fatal shots on their object-Niaz Ahmad. This argument proceeds and centres around theoretical angle and is not appealing justifiable inference suggested by ocular testimony on record is that the accused persons were firing repeated shots on Niaz Ahmad. P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan came out running from the house and fell upon Niaz Ahmad with a view to cover him up, she was also simultaneously shot at and injured by the accused Abdul Haq receipt of the injury by her happened to be the last in the same series as the last part of the transaction. There is no room to presume that after firing volley of shots on Niaz Ahmad, the accused persons had waited for some time and it was then that Abdul Haq fired shot on P. W. 2 Ahmadaunnisan. We wish to point out in this regard that there is categorical statement of P. W. 5 Dr. J. S. Roy that gun shot injuries received by P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan could be the result of one shot. We wish to point out in this regard that there is categorical statement of P. W. 5 Dr. J. S. Roy that gun shot injuries received by P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan could be the result of one shot. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has urged another alleged improbability in the prosecution version that as per evidence of P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad and P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan the accused persons opened shots from near the well and they remained standing there throughout the incident of shooting. Niaz Ahmad was sitting on a cot in the verandah of his Baithaka when the incident of shooting started and the distance of this spot from the place of shooting was about 8 paces. The place wherefrom the shots were fired has been shown by letter b in the site plan and the place where the deceased received shots had been shown by letter A. The distance between two places has been shown as about ten paces. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there was no dispersal in ante-mortem. injury No. 14 of the deceased. According to him, it is indicative of the fact that all the shots could not have been fired from the same distance. Suffice it to say in this regard that the aspect of dispersal becomes immaterial when a number of shots are fired from different weapons and several gun shot injuries are sustained by the victim on different parts of his body. Because of absence of dispersal in respect of ante-mortem injury No. 14 of the deceased it cannot be accepted that the accused persons did not fire almost from the same spot. The appellants must have not been standing in a row at the time of firing. The distance has been given by the witnesses by approximation. P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad has stated that the first injury was received by the deceased on his ankle from the shot of Sharafat. The learned counsel for the appellants has talked about the absence of dispersal in respect of this injury, but the clear statement of P. W. 3 Dr. Som Sharma is that this injury could be the result of single shot and it could be sustained in the position when the victim would have been sitting in the posture of his leg hanging down. Som Sharma is that this injury could be the result of single shot and it could be sustained in the position when the victim would have been sitting in the posture of his leg hanging down. It was natural that on receiving his first shot, the victim moved a step or so but fell down and thereafter received a number of other shots fired on him as is proved by the prosecution evidence. ( 15 ) SO, to come to a close on the second argument of the learned counsel for the appellants as regards the improbability in the manner of the alleged incident, we do not find any merit in it. The ocular testimony of P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad and P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan reconciles with medical evidence. The deceased received a number of gun shots on different parts of the body and they could very well be sustained by him in the manner described by the ocular version as fortified by medical evidence. ( 16 ) THE third argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad and P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan are the partisan witnesses. It has been criticised that no independent witness has been examined, though they have been named in the FIR. It is pertinent to state that it is the quality of evidence and not quantity, which matters. It is not at all necessary for the prosecution to multiply the evidence. Moreover, in the case at hand there was long drawn enmity between two sides. The incident took place at the house of the deceased. P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad (brother of the deceased) and P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan are the most natural witnesses of the incident, P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad being present in the room of adjacent house of Ekram Husain and P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan herself being the injured of the felony. There could be no point in examining other witnesses who, according to P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad, had come after the incident. In view of the attending circumstances, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution case for non-examination of other witnesses. Despite being partisan, P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad and P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan are the most natural witnesses of the incident and their testimonial assertions inspire judicial confidence. In view of the attending circumstances, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution case for non-examination of other witnesses. Despite being partisan, P. W. 1 Kabool Ahmad and P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisan are the most natural witnesses of the incident and their testimonial assertions inspire judicial confidence. ( 17 ) THE fourth line of attack of the learned counsel for the appellants is that on the basis of same evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted one of the accused, namely, Kamaluddin. but convicted others who are the appellants before this Court. According to him, no such yardstick could be adopted for believing the prosecution evidence against the appellants and rejecting the same in respect of the acquitted Kamaluddin. The argument does not impress us. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons for acquitting Kamaluddin that he was aged about 75 years and was found to be bent up with age. Having regard to his age, it was found improbable and doubtful that he would have one to commit this offence in broad day light. We find nothing wrong to the approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. ( 18 ) IT must be observed that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India. In each case the Court has to appraise the evidence to see to what extent it is worthy of acceptance and merely because in one respect the Court considers it insufficient to rely on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be discarded in all respects. The experience has shown that there is tendency on the part of witnesses to exaggerate the guilt of the opposite party and then the imperfection of human memory and of observation also shows that the broad rule that the witnesses who have been disbelieved in respect of the acts imputed to some accused cannot be relied upon for convicting the other accused cannot be laid down as a sufficient guide for all the cases. The Court has to sift the evidence with care is each case and on full consideration of all relevant material circumstances to come to a decision, which part of the testimony of the witnesses is to be accepted and which is to be rejected. The Court has to sift the evidence with care is each case and on full consideration of all relevant material circumstances to come to a decision, which part of the testimony of the witnesses is to be accepted and which is to be rejected. In other words, the witnesses cannot be branded as liars in toto and their testimony rejected outright even if parts of their statements are demonstrably incorrect or doubtful. The Court has to separate the grain of acceptable truth from the chaff of exaggerations and improbabilities which cannot be safely or prudently accepted and acted upon. The dictum falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the reasons that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries, or embellishments. The mere fact that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not fit and safe enough to be relied upon with regard to the part assigned to one accused in the occurrence, is no ground to reject it mechanically against other accused also. This is the gist of what their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court laid down in the case of Bhagwan Tana Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 1974 SCC (Crl) 11 : ( AIR 1974 SC 21 : 1974 Cri LJ 145) and in the case of Bava Hajee Hamsa v. State of Kerala, 1974 SCC (Crl) 515 : AIR 1974 SC 902 : 1974 Cri LJ 755 ). ( 19 ) IN he instant case, the prosecution evidence has been found to be improbable and of doubtful nature in respect of accused Kamaluddin because of his extremely old age. The eye witnesses have not been believed as regards his participation in the crime as the same was found doubtful. The benefit of the fact that the testimony of the eye-witnesses against the accused Kamluddin, keeping in view the attending circumstances, was found doubtful would go to him and it cannot be claimed by the appellants. So far as the present appellants are concerned, the prosecution evidence supported by the medical evidence is of clinching nature proving their guilt to the hilt. So far as the present appellants are concerned, the prosecution evidence supported by the medical evidence is of clinching nature proving their guilt to the hilt. ( 20 ) ACCUSED Kamaluddin having been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on being afforded the benefit of doubt, the number of accused came to be reduced to four who are the appellants before this Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly concluded that they could very well be convicted under S. 302 read with S. 34, IPC and S. 307 read with S. 34, IPC having regard to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in AIR 1973 SC 222 : 1973 Cri LJ 1409. ( 21 ) TO conclude, we are unable to locate any merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants in support of the appeal. Our final conclusion is that they have rightly been convicted under S. 302 read with S. 34, IPC for committing murder of Niaz Ahmad and under S. 307 read with S. 34, IPC for attempting murder of P. W. 2 Ahmadunnisa in furtherance of their common intention. The sentences passed against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge do not call for any interference. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. Appellants Abdul Haq, Sharafat Ali, Saeed Ahmad and Ansar are on bail. They shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentences passed against them viz, life imprisonment under S. 302 read with S. 34, IPC and ten years rigorous imprisonment under S. 307 read with S. 34, IPC the two sentences running concurrently. Appeal dismissed.