JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---The appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 29th September, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 845 of 1991, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default, to suffer R.I. for one year, for the offence under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us. 2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :-- P.W. 2 Ibrahim Kureshi was a friend of Nissar Mohd. Hydross who, in turn was a friend of the deceased Salim @ Salim Builder. The deceased had leased out his hotel to Nissar Mohd. Hydross on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. On 12th February 1991 at about 4.45 p.m. Nissar Mohd. Hydross and Ibrahim Kureshi while passing near Chohan Motor Training School, on way to the house of the former, at S.V. Road Goregaon (West) Bombay, saw that Salim was running from Goregaon towards Jogeshwari on the S.V. Road and was being chased by the appellant and one other who were firing upon him from revolvers. As a consequence of the firing. Salim fell down near the bus-stop in front of Hotel Ratna 100 feet away from Chohan Motor Training School. It is said that as a result of firing made by the appellant and his associate, Mansi a girl aged about 6½ years was injured. Thereafter, the appellant and his associate sat in a Maruti car, wherein including the driver, two persons were sitting and ran away. Apart from Ibrahim Kureshi, Nissar Mohd. Hydross and Mansi, this incident is alleged to have been seen by one Kalim Mohd. Sharif. After the incident, Ibrahim Kureshi and Nissar Mohd. Hydross hired a rickshaw and went to their houses and Kalim Mohd. Sharif went to Goregaon Police Station. 3. Evidence of P.S.I. Subhash Jadhav P.W. 3 and P.I. Vinayak Desai P.W. 8 of Goregaon Police Station shows that immediately after Kalim Mohd. Sharif came, they proceeded to the place of the incident; reaching there at about 5.30 p.m. They found that Salim was not in a condition to speak. They removed him to the Cooper Hospital. They reached the said hospital at 5.45 p.m. where the doctor pronounced Salim to be dead. Sharif came, they proceeded to the place of the incident; reaching there at about 5.30 p.m. They found that Salim was not in a condition to speak. They removed him to the Cooper Hospital. They reached the said hospital at 5.45 p.m. where the doctor pronounced Salim to be dead. The evidence of P.S.I. Subhash Jadhav P.W. 3 shows that after the doctor had pronounced Salim dead at the Cooper Hospital, at 6.05 p.m. he recorded the F.I.R. of Kalim Mohd. Sharif. In the said F.I.R. the informant alleges that the deceased made a oral dying declaration to him in terms that one Harshad had fired upon him. 4. The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by P.S.I. Subhash Jadhav P.W. 3, P.I. Vinayak Desai P.W. 8 and P.I. Ajit Wagh P.W. 9. The same evening, P.S.I. Subhash Jadhav prepared a panchanama of the scene of offence and learnt that a girl named Mansi aged 6½ years, who had been injured in the incident, was being operated upon by the doctor. He took her clothes into possession under a panchanama, and sent the corpse of the deceased for autopsy. Thereafter, that very evening the investigation was transferred to P.I. Vinayak Desai who on the very day, recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses Ibrahim Kureshi and Nissar Mohd. Hydross. On 18th September, 1991 the appellant was arrested and although, he had been named by both Ibrahim Kureshi and Nissar Mohd. Hydross, was put up for test identification and the said two eye-witnesses correctly identified him. We make no bones in observing that in this case, the investigating agency should not have got the test identification of the appellant conducted. On completing the investigation, P.I. Ajit Wagh P.W. 9 submitted the charge sheet against the appellant. It is pertinent to point out that since co-accused Gabriala Baba Hans Moben and Uttam @ Dilip Devram Shinde were absconding, they could not be charge-sheeted. 5. Going backwards, the autopsy on the corpse of Salim @ Salim Builder was conducted on 13th February 1991 between 1 to 3.30 p.m. by Dr. Ashok Shinde P.W. 7 who found on it following nine ante-mortem injuries :-- "(i) Guttering effect of bullet on the left side skull, 6.5 cm. above left ear oblique, below upwards, back to front, 2.5 cm. x 1.0 cm. with singeing hairs. Ashok Shinde P.W. 7 who found on it following nine ante-mortem injuries :-- "(i) Guttering effect of bullet on the left side skull, 6.5 cm. above left ear oblique, below upwards, back to front, 2.5 cm. x 1.0 cm. with singeing hairs. (ii) Fire arm wound of entry on left side skull 2.0 cm. above and behind left ear, 0.8 cm. diameter, 0.2 cm. abraded collar encircling inverted margins. No tattooing/singeing of hair. (iii) Fire arm wound of entry on left side neck at the level of thyroid cartilage 5.0 cm. away from midline 0.7 cm. diameter with 0.2 cm. semicircular abraded collar on lower and medial aspect, inverted margins. No tattooing/singeing of hair. (iv) Fire arm wound of entry on right side back 11.00 cm. away from midline, 5.0 cm. above right collar bone, lateral and 0.7 cm. diameter with 0.2 cm. semicircular abraded collar on lower and lateral aspect, inverted margins, no tattooing/singeing of hair. (v) Fire arm wound of entry on left side chest 2.5 cm. away from midline 8.0 cm. below and medial to left nipple, 0.7 cm. diameter with 0.2 cm. semicircular abraded collar on lower and lateral aspect inverted margins. No tattooing/singeing of hair. (vi) Fire arm wound of entry on left side chest 11.00 cm. below left nipple 6.5 cm. away from midline, 0.7 cm. diameter with 0.2 cm. abraded collar encirculing, inverted margins. No tattooing/singeing of hair. (vii) Fire arm wound of entry on left side back 4.1 cm. above left buttock 5.0 cm. away from midline 0.7 cm. diameter with 0.2 cm. semicircular abraded collar on lower and medial aspect, inverted margins. No tattooing/singeing of hair. (viii) Fire arm wound of entry on left buttock lower part 11.00 cm. away from anal opening (anus) 0.7 cm. diameter, inverted margins. No tattooing/singeing of hair. (ix) Fire arm wound on the left hand little finger, 2nd phalanx. (a) Entry on phalanx aspect, 0.7 cm. diameter inverted margins. No tattooing/singeing of hair. (b) Exit on dorsum 1.1 cm. x 1.0 cm. with fracture 2nd phalanx bone. On internal examination, Dr. Shinde found massive internal damage in the head and brain region and to other vital organs." In the opinion of Dr. Shinde, the ante-mortem injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. On internal examination, Dr. Shinde found massive internal damage in the head and brain region and to other vital organs." In the opinion of Dr. Shinde, the ante-mortem injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. The appellant was the sole accused who was put up for trial. He was charged for offences punishable under section 302 I.P.C. in the alternative under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and under section 307 I.P.C. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of denial. During trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. Three of them namely Kumari Mansi, Ibrahim Kureshi and Nissar Mohd. Hydross P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 respectively were examined as eye-witnesses. The informant Kalim Mohd. Sharif who had also witnessed the incident despite best efforts of the prosecution, could not be traced. Kumari Mansi in her statement neither mentioned the name of the appellant nor of the other assailants nor fixed the place of the incident. Consequently, and rightly in our judgment, the learned trial Judge did not place any reliance on her testimony. He believed the evidence of other two eye-witnesses which he felt received assurance from the F.I.R. lodged by Kalim Mohd. Sharif wherein, there is a mention of a oral dying declaration incriminating the appellant by the name of Harshad and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. Hence, this appeal. 7. We have heard Mr. Shirish Gupte with Mr. S.R. Pasbola for the appellant and Mr. I.S. Thakur, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra-respondent. We have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material Exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; the statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.; and the impugned judgment. On an evaluation of the entire material on record, we have reached the conclusion that this appeal is devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed. In this case, we are implicitly satisfied that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses of the incident namely Ibrahim Kureshi P.W. 2 and Nissar Mohd. Hydross P.W. 6 inspires implicit confidence. The evidence of Ibrahim Kureshi and Nissar Mohd. In this case, we are implicitly satisfied that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses of the incident namely Ibrahim Kureshi P.W. 2 and Nissar Mohd. Hydross P.W. 6 inspires implicit confidence. The evidence of Ibrahim Kureshi and Nissar Mohd. Hydross shows that on 12th February 1991 at about 4.45 p.m. while they were on the way to the house of the former, and had reached near Chohan Motor Training School on S.V. Road, Goregaon (West) Bombay they saw that the deceased Salim was running being chased by the appellant and his associate who fired upon him with revolvers. Their evidence shows that at a distance of about 100 feet from Chohan Motor Training School near the bus-stop in front of Hotel Ratna, Salim fell down. During cross-examination, in para 6, Ibrahim Kureshi also stated that after Salim had fallen down, his two assailants came near him and fired from their revolvers and thereafter, ran away. 8. The version of Ibrahim Kureshi and Nissar Hydross is corroborated by the nature and number of ante-mortem injuries which the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Shinde P.W. 7 found on his person. As mentioned earlier, Dr. Shinde found nine ante- mortem injuries; Their break-up being thus:- One guttering effect of bullet on the left said skull and eight fire arm wounds of entry. In his statement in the trial Court, Dr. Shinde stated that he recovered seven bullets from the corpse of the deceased. It is common knowledge that the bullets are fired from revolvers. In our view, medical evidence lends assurance to the claim of these two eye- witnesses of having seen the incident. Apart from the medical evidence, assurance is lent to the ocular account by the circumstance that both these witnesses were interrogated under section 161 Cr. P.C. the same day (12th February 1991) by P.I. Vinayak Desai P.W. 8. Criminal Courts attach great importance to prompt interrogation of witnesses under section 161 Cr. P.C. because the same eliminates possibility of a doctored account creeping in their statements and lends assurance to their claim of having seen the incident. Assurance to the claim of the eye-witnesses that the incident took place at the place alleged by them is lent by circumstance that from the place of the incident, the Investigating Officer recovered blood-stained earth. P.C. because the same eliminates possibility of a doctored account creeping in their statements and lends assurance to their claim of having seen the incident. Assurance to the claim of the eye-witnesses that the incident took place at the place alleged by them is lent by circumstance that from the place of the incident, the Investigating Officer recovered blood-stained earth. Further assurance is forthcoming coming from the circumstance that seven bullets recovered by the Autopsy Surgeon were sent to the Chemical Analyst Ballistic Forensic Science Laboratory and he reported that the said bullets were fired from revolvers. It should also be borne in mind that both these eye-witnesses were independent witnesses, having no axe to grind against the appellant and in our view, unless they would have seen the appellant firing upon the deceased, in the manner alleged by them, they would not have so falsely deposed. 9. We feel that the evidence of both these witnesses namely Ibrahim Kureshi and Nissar Hydross inspires tremendous confidence; has rightly been believed by the learned trial Judge; and consequently we also believe them. 10. The learned trial Judge has observed that assurance to the evidence of the two eye-witnesses is forthcoming by the circumstance that in the F.I.R. of the incident lodged by Kalim Mohd. Sharif, there is a reference to an oral dying declaration made by Salim to the informant in terms that Harshad had fired upon him. The learned trial Judge has observed that Harshad refers to the appellant Arshad and a person may pronounce Arshad as Harshad. In our view, it would not be safe to hold that when the deceased mentioned Harshad, he was referring to the appellant Arshad. It is true Kalim could not be examined for reasons beyond the control of the prosecution but, it would not be prudent to hold that ocular account receives an assurance from the oral dying declaration. But, this would make no difference, for in our view, the evidence of the two eye-witnesses is implicitly reliable in nature. 11. We would be failing in our fairness, if we do not refer to some of the submissions canvassed by Mr. Gupte learned Counsel for the appellant. The sheet-anchor of Mr. Gupte's submission is that the conduct of both the eyewitnesses is extremely unnatural. Mr. 11. We would be failing in our fairness, if we do not refer to some of the submissions canvassed by Mr. Gupte learned Counsel for the appellant. The sheet-anchor of Mr. Gupte's submission is that the conduct of both the eyewitnesses is extremely unnatural. Mr. Gupte invited out attention to the fact that Nissar Hydross P.W. 6 was a friend of the deceased and Ebrahim Kureshi P.W. 2 was in turn, Nissar Hydross's friend. In Mr. Gupte's contention, the conduct of these witnesses in leaving the deceased, who was not dead, on the place of the incident, and proceeding for their houses, instead taking him to hospital is extremely unnatural. Mr. Gupte also urged that the conduct of the witnesses in not informing the family members of Salim, about the firing done on him by the appellant and the unnamed assailant is also unnatural. In this connection, Mr. Gupte invited our attention to para 7 of the cross-examination of Ebrahim Kureshi wherein he admitted that although he and Nissar Hydross went to Hanuman Nagar where Salim was residing but, did not inform his family members. In all fairness, the conduct of these witnesses was unusual. But, the reason for the same has been unfolded by Nissar Hydross in para 4, during the course of his cross-examination where he stated that he did not take Salim to hospital because, he was afraid. He did not go to the house of Salim first and inform his family members because he was scared and even after the assailants had run away, on account of fear, he did not go near Salim. In our view, this explanation of Nissar Hydross appears to be extremely plausible. In a dare devil manner, in broad day light, in the heart of metropolis of Mumbai, the appellant and his associate had fired from revolvers on Salim. In such a situation, it was perfectly natural for Nissar Hydross to have got scared. In our view, probably for same reasons, Ebrahim Kureshi also did not take either Salim to the hospital or inform his family members. We feel that on account of aforesaid conduct of the witnesses, their evidence cannot be faulted. Mr. Gupte also urged that the conduct of the witnesses in not disclosing the incident to anyone till they were interrogated under section 161 Cr. P.C. was un-natural. We feel that on account of aforesaid conduct of the witnesses, their evidence cannot be faulted. Mr. Gupte also urged that the conduct of the witnesses in not disclosing the incident to anyone till they were interrogated under section 161 Cr. P.C. was un-natural. We are not inclined to accept the submission for two reasons:- Firstly, it may have been on account of fear. Secondly, on the very day, of the incident, these witnesses were interrogated by P.I. Desai. Mr. Gupte next urged that the statements of both Ebrahim Kureshi and Nissar Hydross were not recorded on the date of the incident as alleged by the prosecution but, were recorded later on and were shown to be ante-timed. To lend thrust to his submission, he invited our attention to the cross-examination of P.I. Desai who recorded the aforesaid statements and during the course of his cross-examination in para 5, admitted that there is no counter signature of A.C.P on the statements of these witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. In our view, merely on this circumstance, the claim of P.I. Desai that he did not interrogate them the same day, cannot be brushed aside. In this connection, it would be pertinent to mention that no suggestion during cross-examination was given to P.I. Desai to the effect that he did not record the statements the same day but, recorded them later on and had shown them as ante-timed. So far as absence of counter signature on the statements of these witnesses by the A.C.P. is concerned, in our view it was an act of remissness on the part of P.I. Desai. The Supreme Court in para 10 of the oft quoted case of (Chandrakant Laxman appellant v. State of Maharashtra, respondent)1, reported in A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court page 220 has observed in substance that if any infirmity has crept in an account of any remissness on the part of the Investigating Officer, and not due to any improvement or prevarication on the part of the prosecution witnesses, there would be no justification for discarding the accusation. Mr. Gupte next contended that the statement of Ebrahim Kureshi shows that same day at about 8.30 p.m. the police had called him at Goregaon Police Station and recorded his statement. He urged that how did P.I. Vinayak Desai who had recorded his statement have knowledge that he had seen the incident. Mr. Gupte next contended that the statement of Ebrahim Kureshi shows that same day at about 8.30 p.m. the police had called him at Goregaon Police Station and recorded his statement. He urged that how did P.I. Vinayak Desai who had recorded his statement have knowledge that he had seen the incident. Since P.I. Desai was not questioned on this during cross-examination by the defence, no capital can be made of it by the defence. Mr. Gupte lastly urged that there is a conflict between the manner of firing as deposed to by the eye-witnesses and the nature of ante-mortem injuries found on the deceased by the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Ashok Shinde P.W. 7. In this connection, he pointed out that there is a discrepancy in the account furnished by the two eye-witnesses. He urged that whereas Ebrahim Kureshi deposed that the deceased was fired upon in two stages; first while being chased by the appellant and his associate and second, after he had fallen down; Nissar Hydross only refers to the firing on the deceased by the appellant and his associate while they were chasing him. In Mr. Gupte's contention, if the deceased was only fired upon while he was running, as deposed to by Nissar Hydross, then the wounds of entry would only be on the back and not on the front. In this connection, Mr. Gupte invited our attention to the cross-examination of Dr. Ashok Shinde P.W. 7 who stated that five of the injuries sustained by the deceased namely injury Nos. 3,4,5,6, and 9 (which were wounds of entry) were on the front side of the body. In our view, merely because Nissar Hydross did not state that Salim was fired upon after he fell down would not wash of the portion of the statement of Ebrahim Kureshi extracted during the course of cross-examination that after Salim had fallen down, the appellant and his associate fired upon. We feel that after falling down, when the deceased was fired upon, he sustained injuries 3,4,5,6, and 9. It may also be as urged by Mr. Thakur Additional Public Prosecutor, that while Salim was running, being chased by the appellant and his associate, he turned around and in that process received injuries on the front side. 12. We feel that after falling down, when the deceased was fired upon, he sustained injuries 3,4,5,6, and 9. It may also be as urged by Mr. Thakur Additional Public Prosecutor, that while Salim was running, being chased by the appellant and his associate, he turned around and in that process received injuries on the front side. 12. At any rate, since the injuries of the deceased were compatible with the manner of their being caused as deposed to by the eye-witnesses, the ocular account cannot be brushed aside. In this connection, it would be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court, page 484 (Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai, Appellant v. State of Gujarat, respondent)2 wherein in para 12, the Supreme Court observed thus:- "Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative, it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner, alleged by eye witnesses, the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence." (Emphasis supplied) If the yard-stick laid down by the Supreme Court is to be borne in mind, the ocular evidence in our case cannot be faulted with. 13. There can be no manner of doubt that the offence made out against the appellant would squarely fall within ambit of section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. for which offence, the appellant has been found guilty by the trial Court. The evidence of the two eye-witnesses Ebrahim Kureshi P.W. 2 and Nissar Hydross, P.W. 6, which we have accepted shows that the appellant along with his unnamed associate, both armed with revolvers chased the deceased and fired upon him, a large number of rounds. The Autopsy Surgeon found on the person of the deceased as many as nine fire arm injuries. In the teeth of the aforesaid evidence, it is crystal clear that the murder of the deceased was committed by the appellant and his associate in furtherance of their common intention. The Autopsy Surgeon found on the person of the deceased as many as nine fire arm injuries. In the teeth of the aforesaid evidence, it is crystal clear that the murder of the deceased was committed by the appellant and his associate in furtherance of their common intention. Hence, the guilt of the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. has been squarely established. Neither the sentence awarded to the appellant warrants interference. 14. In the result, we confirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and dismiss this appeal. The appellant is in jail and shall remain there till he serves out his sentence. Appeal dismissed. *****