M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) - Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 29-4-1980 passed by Vishnu Chandra, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 1979. They being connected with each other are being decided by this common judgment treating Criminal Appeal No. 980 of 1980 as the leading appeal. ( 2 ) IN all, thirteen persons were tried by the Court below in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 1979 in question. They were (1) Raghib, (2) Hazi Sani, (3) Salim, (4) Shamshad. (5) Hazi Yamin, (6) Jalil, (7) Tahsin, (8) Gulzar, (9) Ashfaq, (10) Akhtar, (11) Asghar Gullu (12) Safdar and (13) Kunwar. Out of them Asghar Gulla died during the pendency of trial and the case against him abated. Four of the remaining twelve, namely (1) Hazi Shamsad (2) Ashfaq (3) Safdar and (4) Kunwar were acquitted on being aforded the benefit of doubt. The remaining eight accused appellants were convicted and were punished with different sentences. Six of them, namely, Raghib, Salim, Hazi Yamin, Tahsin, Guizar and Akhtar were convicted under Section 148 I. P. C. and under Section 302 I. P. C. read with Section 149 I. P. C. Each of them was sentenced to two yearst rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I. P. C. and life imprisonment under Section 302 I. P. C. read with section 149 I. P. C. The remaining two namely Hazi Sani and Jalil were convicted under Section 147 I. P. C and 302 I. P. C. read with Section 149 I. P. C. Each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 147 I. P. C. and life imprisonment under Section 302 I. P. C. read with Section 149 I. P. C. Akhtar has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1127 of 1980 whereas the other seven convicted accused-appellants have preferred Criminal Appeal 980 of 1980. Hazi Yamin and Hazi Sani appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 980 of 1980 died during the pendency of the appeal. As such this appeal abated in so far as the accused appellants Yamin and Hazi Sani are concerned. Therefore for the present we are only concerned with five accused appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 980 of 1980 who are (1) Raghib (2) Salim (3) Tahsin. As such this appeal abated in so far as the accused appellants Yamin and Hazi Sani are concerned. Therefore for the present we are only concerned with five accused appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 980 of 1980 who are (1) Raghib (2) Salim (3) Tahsin. (4) Gulzar and (5) Jalil and Akhtar who is accused appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1127 of 1980. ( 3 ) THE incident took place on 18-10-1978 at about 7 P. M. inside a bus near Galhewala, Police Station Fatehpur, District Saharanpur. Three persons namely, Phullu Ali Bahadur and Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu were murdered in this incident. The post -mortem over their dead bodies had been conducted on 20-10-1978 at 2 P. M. 2. 30 P. M. and 3. 30 P. M. respectively by Dr. N. K. Saxena P. W. 5. It would be proper to set out the outcome of the post-mortem of the dead body of each of them so as to appreciate the subsequent discussion relating to facts evidence and conclusion. ( 4 ) THE deceased Phullu was aged about 60 years and about 1-1/2 to 2 days had passed since he died. As per the postmortem report Ex. Ka-4 the following ante-mortem injury was found on his person:1. Multiple gunshot wounds of entrance in an area of 12 cm x 8 cm on back of neck lower part each wound 1/5 cm x 1/ 5 cm x tissue deep. Blackening and tattooing present around the wound. The death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injury. As per the post-mortem report Ex. Ka 5 the deceased All Bahadur was aged about 25 years and about 1-1/2 to 2 days had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person: 1. Multiple gunshot wounds of entrance in an area of 13 cm x 8 cm on right side of chest just above and to the right nipple. Blackening present around the wound each wound 1/5 cm x 3/5 cm x chest cavity deep and directed backward and slightly to right. 2. Two gunshot wounds of entrance in an area of 2 cm x 2 cm on right side chest front just below injury No. 1 each wound 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm in size. Blackening present around the wound. Wounds directed backwards and slightly to right and chest cavity deep. 2. Two gunshot wounds of entrance in an area of 2 cm x 2 cm on right side chest front just below injury No. 1 each wound 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm in size. Blackening present around the wound. Wounds directed backwards and slightly to right and chest cavity deep. The death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. As per the post-mortem report of third deceased Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu Ex. Ka-6 he was aged about 50 years about 1-1/2 to 2 days had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person:1. Incised wound 19 cm x 10 cm x bone cut on the neck at the end of 5th cervical vertebrae, part of the body above 5th cervical vertebrae missing. 2. Gunshot wound of entrance 3 cm x 2-1/2 cm x chest cavity deep on right side of chest upper part, front 6 cm below top of right shoulder. Wound directed medially and slightly backward. Blackening and tattooing present. 3. Gunshot wound of entrance 1/2 cm x 1-1/4 cm x tissue deep on the outer-side of right arm. Upper part directed forward, upward and medially. No blackening or tattooing present. 4. Multiple contusions in an area of 11 cm x 8 cm on front of right side of abdomen upper part. Size varying from 8cm x 3cm to 4cm x 1 cm. 5. Gunshot wound of entrance 2-1/2 cm x 2 cm on left side of abdomen 15 cm below nipple. Abdomen cavity deep directed backward. Blackening and tattooing present. 6. Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm on back of left elbow. 7. Gunshot wound entrance 2-1/2 cm x 2-1/2 cm on front of abdomen left side 5 cm above and to left of umbilicus. Abdomen cavity deep, directed backward. Blackening and tattooing nil. 8. Gunshot wound on entrance 4 cm x 3 cm on front of left thigh middle part directed backward and outward. Blackening and tattooing present. 9. Multiple gunshot wound of exit in an area of 4 cm x 4 cm on outer part of middle of left thigh each wound cm x in size communicating with injury No. 8. 10. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on front of left knee. 11. Abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm on front of right thigh lower part. 9. Multiple gunshot wound of exit in an area of 4 cm x 4 cm on outer part of middle of left thigh each wound cm x in size communicating with injury No. 8. 10. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on front of left knee. 11. Abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm on front of right thigh lower part. As is clear from the post-mortem report his head was missing. Death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. ( 5 ) THE first information report was lodged by Iftikhar P. W. 1 at Police Station Fatehpur the same night at 8. 30 P. M. The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was 2-1/2 miles. The eye witnesses of the incident examined by the prosecution were Iftikhar P. W. 1 Jamil P. W. 2 and Matloob P. W. 3. The rest were formal witnesses comprising of Doctor and police personnel including the Investigating Officer. ( 6 ) THE prosecution case as culled out from the first information report and evidence adduced in the Court, may be set forth. The inter se relationship of the accused who faced the trial is relevant to be noted. Raghib and Hazi Sani (now deceased) were real brothers. Salim accused is their nephew being the son of their deceased brother Sattar Safdar (acquitted) and Kunwar (acquitted) were real brothers and cousins of Raghib and Hazi Sant. Hazi Shamshad (acquitted) and Yamin (now deceased) were real brothers and Ashfaq (acquitted) was the son of Yasin who was the brother of Yamin and Haji Shamshad. All these persons belonged to one Khandan. ( 7 ) TAHSIN and Guizar accused are real brothers. Asghar Gullu accused who died during the pendency of the trial and Akhtar accused were also real brother being the sons of Bashir. About seven years before the accident, Satterreal brother of accused-appellant Raghib and Hazi Sani had been murdered. He was as mentioned above, the father of Salim accusedappellant. Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu (victim of the present incident) had been challaned for the murder of Sattar but was acquitted on trial. After his acquittal he had started living at Saharanpur. Only four months before the present incident he had started living in the village Khujnawar. Police Station Fatehpur. District Saharanpur. A month before the present occurrence. Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu (victim of the present incident) had been challaned for the murder of Sattar but was acquitted on trial. After his acquittal he had started living at Saharanpur. Only four months before the present incident he had started living in the village Khujnawar. Police Station Fatehpur. District Saharanpur. A month before the present occurrence. Raghib and others had attacked the house of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu Proceedings under Sections 107/116 Cr. P. C. had been initiated in that regard against both the parties and the same were pending. On account of such previous background there was deep seated enmity between the accused appellants Raghib and others on the one hand and Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu on the other. Ali Bahadur (another victim of present offence) was the cousin of complainant Iftikhar P. W. 1 and he used to live with Mohd. Rarnzan alias Sadhu. Iftikhar P. W. its brother Atikurrehman was the Sarhu of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu. Thus there was closeness of relationship between Iftikhar P. W. 1 Ali Bahadur (victim-deceased) Jamli P. W. 2 Quadir Abdul Hakeem. Irshad and the accused-appellants Jalil. Tahsin and Gulzar all belonging to village Khajnawar boarded private bus at Chhutmalpur at about 6. 30 p. m. for going to their village. It was a private bus plying on that route. There were about 30-32 passengers inside the bus. Headlights and the lights inside the bus were on. When this bus readied in front of village Galhewala. Jalil accused-appellant got the bus stopped on the pretext of getting down there. As soon as the bus stopped there all the remaining accused-appellants along with three or four unknown persons got inside the bus. The accused appellant Raghib and Salim were armed with pistols. Asghar Gullu (who died during the pendency of trial) had a single barrel gun. Akhtar (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1127 of 1980) had a double barrel gun. The accused-appellant Yamin (who died during the pendency of appeal) and Hazi Shamshad (acquitted) had Tabals in their hands. The accused appellants Tahsin and Gulzar were armed with knives. Remaining others had lathis and dandas. Instantaneously on boarding the bus the accused-appellant Raghib opened fire on Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu (victim-deceased) and the accused-appellant Salim opened fire on Ali Bahadur (victim-deceased) with country made pistols. The accused appellants Tahsin and Gulzar were armed with knives. Remaining others had lathis and dandas. Instantaneously on boarding the bus the accused-appellant Raghib opened fire on Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu (victim-deceased) and the accused-appellant Salim opened fire on Ali Bahadur (victim-deceased) with country made pistols. At that time Ali Bahadur (victim- deceased) was sitting on a two seated berth in the left side while Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu (victim deceased) was sitting by his side on three seated berth on right. By the side of Mohd. Rarnzan alias Sadhu one Phullu was sitting and when Raghib and Salim opened fire on Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu and Ali Bahadur both of them got up to run away. However, they were not allowed to do so by the accused appellants Jalil. Gulzar and Tahsin who were sitting in the bus from before. Phullu who was travelling by the same bus was a stranger. He tried to intervene and questioned Raghib and others as to why they were behaving that way. However, he was also fired at by the accused-appellant Raghib. He fell down on receiving the gunshot injury inside the bus. When Jalil. Gulzar and Tahsin accused-appellants prevented Mohd. Rarnzan alias Sadhu and Ali Bahadur from running away the pistol borne accused with their pistols and Akhtar and Asghar Gullu with their guns opened fire on both of them. Both of them fell down on receiving gunshot injuries. Thereafter the accused persons dragged down Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu and Ali Bahadur from the bus from the back side. Phullu and Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu died at the spot. The other passengers of the bus were threatened by the accused-appellant Raghib to be shot dead in case they tried to move. The accused-appellant Salim then took Tabal from Yaman accused-appellant (now dead) and Akhtar accused-appellant took knife from the accused-appellant Tahsin and both of them severed the head of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu and took the same away saying that they had taken the revenge of the murder of Sattar. ( 8 ) ALI Bahadur had not died at the spot. Iftikhar P. W. 1 and others put him on a horse driven Buggi of Habib and left for Fatehpur hospital, However, he died on the way near Fatehpur. Thereafter, Iftikhar PW1 got the report (Ex. ( 8 ) ALI Bahadur had not died at the spot. Iftikhar P. W. 1 and others put him on a horse driven Buggi of Habib and left for Fatehpur hospital, However, he died on the way near Fatehpur. Thereafter, Iftikhar PW1 got the report (Ex. Ka-1) scribed by Jamil P. W. 2 and took the same to the Police Station where he lodged it and also handed over, the dead body of Ali Bahadur. Chick was prepared by Head Constable Mahipal Singh P. W. 4 and a case was registered in the presence of the Station Officer J. P. Sharma P. W. 7 who took up the investigation in his hands. He reached the place of occurrence along with police force. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, the spot was inspected, inquest reports of the deceased were prepared together with other relevant papers. The bus was inspected. Blood stained and sample earth had been collected from the place of occurrence. Four empty cartridges of 12 bore and one L. G. Cartridge (missed) had been found inside the bus. Four wads were found on the ground outside the bus. Two empty cartridges and one wad had also been taken possession by him from the spot. Inside the bus there were blood stains on the seat and as such, the blood stained cover had also been taken in possession. One pair of shoes of Sadhu was taken possession of from outside the bus and one part of shoes of Ali Bahadur was also taken possession of by him from outside the bus. The cap of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu and Tabij wrapped in cloth lying near the dead body (tied on the left hand of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu) had also been taken in possession. ( 9 ) THE accused persons were searched but in vain. Only the accused Safdar (acquitted) could be arrested on 19-10-1978, in the village. He was sent to jail. The remaining accused surrendered in Court on different dates and were sent to jail. Ultimately after the conclusion of the investigation thirteen accused persons were booked for trial. The trial culminated into the impugned judgment and order. The defence was of complete denial and of false implication. ( 10 ) WE have heard Sri Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi, leaned counsel for the appellants in support of appeal No. 980 of 1980 and the learned AG. Ultimately after the conclusion of the investigation thirteen accused persons were booked for trial. The trial culminated into the impugned judgment and order. The defence was of complete denial and of false implication. ( 10 ) WE have heard Sri Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi, leaned counsel for the appellants in support of appeal No. 980 of 1980 and the learned AG. A on behalf of the State. Though the accused appellant Akhtar (of appeal No. 1127 of 1980) is represented by Sri. R. C. Kandpal, Advocate but he did not turn up to argue out the appeal. We have examined the record ourselves for him and to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing in appeal No. 980 of 1980 and of learned AG. A. ( 11 ) IT may be stated at the risk of repetition that because of death of certain accused appellants we are presently concerned only with the accused appellants Raghib, Salim, Tahsin, Gulzar, Jalil and Akhtar. It has first been argued by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the three eyewitnesses on whose testimony the learned trial Judge has relied were partisan, interested and chance witnesses. Their testimonial assertions have also been challenged on the ground none of them is an injured witness. It is urged that the presence of any of them at the time of alleged occurrence is unnatural and none of them could assign any plausible reason for his presence in the bus at the time bf the alleged incident. While examining the worth of these submissions, we do not locate any merit therein. ( 12 ) SO far as interested and partisan character of the witnesses is concerned, we note that nothing could be imputed in this regard against Matloob P. W. 3. Only it was suggested to him in his cross- examination that mother of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu and his own mother belonged to the same village. He admitted this fact but denies that they were distant sisters. Another suggestion made to him was that his house was adjacent to that of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu (victim deceased ). He admitted this fact. It is not capable of being accepted that this witness would depose falsely against the accused-appellants simply because he resided in the neighbourhood of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu or that his mother and that of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu hailed from the same village. Ramzan alias Sadhu (victim deceased ). He admitted this fact. It is not capable of being accepted that this witness would depose falsely against the accused-appellants simply because he resided in the neighbourhood of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu or that his mother and that of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu hailed from the same village. So the point of the matter is that it could not be shown that Matloob P. W. 3 was an interested or partisan witness. ( 13 ) NO doubt, Iftikhar P. W. 1 and Jamil P. W. 2 are interested witnesses in that Iftikhar P. W. 1 is the first real cousin of Ali Bahadur deceased who was thick with Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu and used to live with him. There was another relationship that Iftikharts brother Atikurrahman was the Sarhu of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu. Similarly, Jamil P. W2 was also bracketed with Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu in proceedings s. Rarnzan alias Sadhu whose relations with accused-appellants forming another group were inimical. But that alone would not justify the rejection of their testimonial assertions. In a murder -trial when the witnesses are relations of the deceased or otherwise interested, that alone would not make their evidence unreliable. It only casts a duty on the Court to analyse their evidence with more than ordinary care. In the present, case, the statements were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination but the central core of their testimony remains intact, so far as the present accused-appellants Raghib, Salim, Tahsin, Gulzar Jalil and Akhtar are concerned. The testimony of the eyewitnesses unerringly proved their participation in this ghastly crime and the specific role played by each of them. ( 14 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants does not commend itself for acceptance that the eye-witnesses could not assign any reason for being present inside the bus at the time of the incident. We note that each of them has given plausible explanation for having gone to Chhutmalpur on that day and returning by the bus in question when the incident took place. It is there in the testimony of Iftikhar P. W. 1 that he had gone to Chhutmalpur on that day to make purchases such as chillies and dhariia. He had also to meet someone there. It is there in the testimony of Iftikhar P. W. 1 that he had gone to Chhutmalpur on that day to make purchases such as chillies and dhariia. He had also to meet someone there. He spent the day in Chhutmalpur and boarded the bus in question near petrol pump where 10-11 others of his village (including Jamil P. W. 2 and Matloob P. W. 3) were found to be sitting in the bus from before. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants criticized that he had gone to Chhutmalpur at about 10- 11 A. M. The route was only of 15-20 minutes as admitted by him and there could be no reason for his spending the whole day at Chhutmalpur and boarding the bus at about 6. 30 p. m. Sufficient to say in this regard that time is hardly the essence of life of the villagers. There is nothing unusual if he spent the day in Chhutmalpur itself and was returning to his village in the evening by boarding the bus at about 6. 30 p. m. Jamil P. W. 2 also explained that he had gone to Chhutmalpur for purchasing Binaula for his she-buffalo. His name and of Matloob P. W. 3 find place in the promptly lodged first information report which had been made before any time gap could intervene for concocti9n or deliberation. So far as Matloob P. W. 3 is concerned, he had gone to Chhutmalpur Oil that day at about 4 p. m. to purchase shoes. It is not disputed that there was a market at Chhutmalpur wherefrom purchases could be made or used to be made by the persons of surrounding village. There was nothing unusual or unnatural if the three eyewitnesses had gone to Chhutmalpur market on that day to make sundry purchases and were returning in the evening by the bus in question. ( 15 ) THE reasoning suggested by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that none of the eye-witnesses sustained any injury is also built on unstable foundation. It is not necessary that before being believed as a witness of murder or assault one should him self be always injured of the incident. The facts of each case have to be examined as there can be no universal rule to reject the testimony of an eye-witness on the ground that he himself is not the injured. It is not necessary that before being believed as a witness of murder or assault one should him self be always injured of the incident. The facts of each case have to be examined as there can be no universal rule to reject the testimony of an eye-witness on the ground that he himself is not the injured. Learned counsel for accused-appellants urged that at lest Iftlkbar P. W. 1. and Jamil P. W. 2 would also have been targeted by the accused appellants and must have received some injuries as they belonged to the group or party of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu. The argument is based on superficial angle of approach and cannot stand a close scrutiny when analyzed in the light of the facts and related circumstances. The main grudge and venom was harbored by the accused-appellants against Mohd. Rarnzan alias Sadhu whom they believed to be the murderer of Sattar in which case he had been acquitted. Ali Bahadur was quite thick with Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu as he was living with him. Thus he was the sympathizer of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu and was quite close to the like a family member. Therefore the accused appellants also thought it fit to target and liquidate this close sympathizer of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu. Moreover it has to be kept in mind that the incident took place all of sudden. The eye-witnesses as also the victims were taken by surprise. The eyewitnesses were also conscious of highly strained relations between the accused-appellants and Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu and Ali Bahadur deceased. The eye-witnesses were unarmed. There is nothing unnatural or unusual that sensing the delicacy of the situation and seeing the blood of revenge in the eyes of the accused-appellants they just kept quite and did not protest or could have no courage to make any protest by intervening or interfering for the sake of their own lives. A stranger (Phullu) who intervened was shot dead by the accused-appellants. It can very well be imagined that the fate of the eye witnesses would have been no better than that of the stranger Phullu who had dared to intervene. A stranger (Phullu) who intervened was shot dead by the accused-appellants. It can very well be imagined that the fate of the eye witnesses would have been no better than that of the stranger Phullu who had dared to intervene. ( 16 ) SO far as Matloob P. W. 3 is concerned learned counsel for the accused-appellants pointed out that be admitted in his cross-examination that some of the culprits who had boarded the bus on being got stopped by Jalil near Village Galhewala had masked their faces. He reasoned that it indicated that the culprits had taken steps to conceal their identity and this being so, there could hardly be any question of some of them participating in this crime with open faces as has been insisted upon by Matloob P. W. 3. This argument too is to be rejected. We should state our reasons in this behalf. We note that no such suggestion of masking of the faces by the culprits was made by the defence either to Iftikhar P. W. 1 or to Jamil P. W. 2. The examination-in-chief of Matloob P. W. 3 concluded on 4-12-1979. The defence requested for deferring his cross-examination. The prayer was accepted and his cross-examination was taken up on 15-12-1979 wherein the suggestion of the masking of faces by the person boarding the bus near village Galhewala was made. We have not the slightest doubt that in the intervening period of 4-12-1979 and 15-12-1979 the accused-appellants succeeded in softening Matloob P. W. 3 and it was for this reason that he made an attempt to extend a helping hand to the defence in certain measures by saying that four or five persons were with open faces and 7-8 others had muffled up their faces who had boarded the bus near village Galhewala on being stopped by Jalil. To quote his exact words. 1012 ADMI JO BUS MET GAIREWATA KE PAS GHUSE THHE UNME KUCHH DHATE BANDHE THHE KUCHH KE NAHIN 4-5 KE MUNH KHULE THHE7-B DHATA BANDHE THHE JO DHATA BANDHE THHE UNKE DHATE NAHIN KHULE AUR WE MAUKE SE DHATA BANDHE HE BHHAG GAYE. We are certain that Matloob P. W. 3 made this statement in his cross- examination after eleven days of his examination in-chief at the behest of the defence. He was let off with a very short cross-examination. We are certain that Matloob P. W. 3 made this statement in his cross- examination after eleven days of his examination in-chief at the behest of the defence. He was let off with a very short cross-examination. The adage, however, goes that two falsehoods fight between themselves. Despite an attempt having been made by Matloob P. W. 3 to disturb the prosecution case, the truth has remained intact. Matloob P. W. 3 himself admitted that Raghib and Salim had boarded the bus with open faces. The accused-appellant Jalil, Tahsin and Gulzar were sitting in the bus from before with open faces. It was one by them Jalil who had got the bus stopped near village Galhewala on the pretext of getting gone. It is exposed that Matloob P. W. 3 introduced the theory of the mutloob up of faces by some of those boarding the bus near village Galhewala at the behest of the defence and his statement in this behalf has to be ignored. It goes without saying that it is the duty of the Court to separate the chaff from the grain. ( 17 ) TO come to the point all the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants to persuade us to discard the testimony of the three eye- witnesses are built on straw and do not carry conviction. ( 18 ) IT has next been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu was a person of criminal background and his unknown enemies could have committed this crime. Our attention was invited to the admission made by Iftikhar P. W. 1 in his cross-examination that Mohd. Ramzan all alias Sadhu had brought a mare with him which he had sold to a washerman 2 or 2-1/2 months before. He however pleaded ignorance that the mare belonged to one Farman Ali who himself was a Badmash and he had sent a message to Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu about 15 days before this incident that his mare be returned as otherwise his head would be severed. It is not at all believable that Farman would have committed the murder of Mohd. Rarnzan alias Sadhu in the way as suggested by the defence. If a person named Farman had actually some grudge against Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu about 15 days before this incident that his mare be returned as otherwise his head would be severed. It is not at all believable that Farman would have committed the murder of Mohd. Rarnzan alias Sadhu in the way as suggested by the defence. If a person named Farman had actually some grudge against Mohd. Rarnzan alias Sadhu, he could hardly have any motive to commit the murder of Ali Babadur and even of a stranger Phullu. Such an imaginary defence could have no legs to stand. Moreover, it is the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence that the case is to be decided on the basis of the, judicial scrutiny of the evidence, brought on record, without giving free flight to imagination to draw freak inferences. The fanciful suggestion made by the defence to displace the prosecution case cannot overshadow the impact of convincing and trustworthy evidence of the eye witnesses that the incident took place on the given date, time and place and in the manner alleged by the prosecution and that the culprits comprised of the present accused-appellants Raghib, Salim, Tahsin, Gulzar, Jalil and Akhtar. The role of all of them in the commission of this crime has clearly been spelt out and their guilt is proved to the hilt. Jalil played the initial lighter and innocuous role of getting the bus stopped near village Galhewala on the pretext of getting down. The accused-appellants Raghib and Salim opened fire on Mohd. Rarnzan alias Sadha and Ali Bahadur. When they wanted to run away Jain Gulzar and Tahsin prevented them from escaping and running away after getting down from the bus. The accused- appellants Raghib and Salim with their pistols and Akhtar and Asghar alias Gullu (who died during the pendency of the appeal) then opened fire on Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu and Ali Bahadur who fell down inside the bus after receiving gunshot injuries. The accused appellant Raghib also opened fire on a stranger Phullu who had dared to intervene. He too died of the gunshot injury inside the bus itself. The accused-appellant then dragged Mohd. Rarnzan alias Sadhu and Ali Bahadur down the bus and the accused-appellant Salim took the Tabal from Yamin (now dead) and Akhtar (now dead) took knife from Tahsin and both of them severed the head of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu which they took away. He too died of the gunshot injury inside the bus itself. The accused-appellant then dragged Mohd. Rarnzan alias Sadhu and Ali Bahadur down the bus and the accused-appellant Salim took the Tabal from Yamin (now dead) and Akhtar (now dead) took knife from Tahsin and both of them severed the head of Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu which they took away. Thus everyone of them were members of unlawful assembly and played potent role in the commission of this ghastly crime. The medical evidence is in conformity with the ocular version of the eye-witness. Phullu and Ali Bahadur died on gunshot injuries. Mohd. Ramzan alias Sadhu received gunshot injuries as well as of cut weapons. He sustained abrasion too which could have been caused by friction (as a result of dragging ). His head had been severed and was missing. It is in the evidence of the eye-witnesses that the accused persons took away his head after it was severed by Salim and Akhtar. The accused-appellants committed this crime while being the members of an unlawful assembly. They have rightly been convicted and, sentenced by the learned trial judge. ( 19 ) NONE of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant holds water. The appeal being devoid of merits has to be dismissed. ( 20 ) AS a cumulative result of the reasons detailed herein above, we do not, find any merit in any of the two appeals. However Criminal Appeal No. 980 of 1980 abates insofar as accused-appellants Yamin and Hazisani are concerned as they have died during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal is dismissed so far as the accused-appellants Raghib. Salim. Tahsin. Guizar and Jalil are concerned. Appeal No. 1127 of 1980 preferred by accused appellant Akhtar is also dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are affirmed. As a result each of the accused-appellants Raghib. Salim. Tahsin. Guizar. Jalil and Akhtar shall undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 I. P. C. read with Section 149 I. P. C. and of the accused-appellants Raghib, Salim. Tahsin. Guizar and Akhtar shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 I. P. C. The accused-appellant Jalil shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148 I. P. C. Substantive sentences of all the accused-appellants shall run concurrently. Tahsin. Guizar and Akhtar shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 I. P. C. The accused-appellant Jalil shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148 I. P. C. Substantive sentences of all the accused-appellants shall run concurrently. They are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate. Saharanpur shall cause them to be sent to jail after arrest to serve out the sentences awarded to them. ( 21 ) LET a copy of this judgment alongwith the record of the case be immediately sent to the Court below for needful compliance under intimation to this Court within two months positively. Appeal dismissed. .