Judgment Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-The abovenamed accused appellants have preferred this appeal against the Judgment and order dated 9.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Sri Ganganagar, Headquarters at Sri Karanpur in Sessions Case No. 16/97 (Old No. 66/94) whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the following manner: Name of accused appellants Convicted under Section Sentence awarded to each accused appellant 1. Dungar Ram 2. Khayali Ram 3. Banwari LalThree Year’s RI Life Imprisonment & fine of 148 IPC 302/149 IPC Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of undergo one month RI. 4. Hari Ram 5. Shankar Lal 6. Raghuveer Singh307/149 IPCTen Year’s RI and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month RI. 7. Surendra 8. Madan Lal 9. Sohan Lal27 Arms Act Five years’ RI and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month RI. 10. Bhagirath147 IPC 302/149 IPC Two years’ RI. Life Imprisonment & fine of Rs. 100/-, in defau of payment of fine, to futher undergo, one month RI. 307/149 IPC Ten years’ RI and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, one month RI. The above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. .2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows: On 7.1994 at about 8,00 PM, PW1 Ram Pratap lodged a written report Ex.P/1 before PW19 Vipin Sharma, SHO, Police Station Gha-mudwali District Sri Ganganagar stating inter-alia that his father Asharam (PW4) had two wives and out of first wife, there are Five sons viz. 2. Han Ram - Accused appellant No. 4 3. Sheo Karan 4. Dungar Ram - Accused appellant No.1 5. Khayali Ram - Accused appellant No. 2 and out of the second wife, he (PW1 Ram Pratap) is the only son. It is further stated in the report that PW4 Ashararn made partition of his property before 10-12 years back with consent to panchayat decision. Looking to the sound financial condition of PW-1 Ram Pralap, the other step brothers had a grudge with him and they used to say that they would see him when the proper time would come. Though he himself had no grudge against them, but internally they were not happy with PW-1 Ram Pratap. Looking to the sound financial condition of PW-1 Ram Pralap, the other step brothers had a grudge with him and they used to say that they would see him when the proper time would come. Though he himself had no grudge against them, but internally they were not happy with PW-1 Ram Pratap. It is further stated in the report that on 30.6.1994 he went to Delhi and returned back from Delhi in the morning of 7.1994 and on 7.1994 at about 6-6.30 PM in the evening, his two sons, namely, Rahul and Sidharth (hereinafter referred to as the deceased No.1 and deceased No. 2 respectively) and their friend, namely, PW-2 Bablu Suchit and PW-3 Shiv Prakash had gone to field where tube well was also there and at that time, PW1 Ram Pratap was sitting on the roof of the room of the tube well and PW-3 Shiv Prakash was also looking after his crops. It is further stated in the report that when his both sons (deceased) and PW2 Bablu proceeded towards village on the motor-cycle, in the meantime, one moter-cycle and one jeep came from the front side and on the motor cycle, accused appellants Madan Lal and Shankar were there and accused appellants, namely, Dungar Ram, Khyaliram, Raghuveer, Hariram, Surendra and Banwari came out from the Jeep and at that time, they all were having guns and pistols in their hands. The motor cycle was being driven by accused appellant Madanlal and accused appellant Shankar was sitting behind him and accused appellant Shankar was having a pistol. It is further stated in the report that thereafter all of them encircled both deceased and PW2 Bablu and told “AAJ INKA KANTA NIKAL DENGE”. Thereafter, first fire was shot by accused appellant Shankar from the front side on deceased No.2 Sidharth and accused appellant Raghuveer fired with pistol on another deceased No. 1 Rahul-and accused appellant Dungar Ram also fired a gun shot on PW2 Bablu and, therefore, he fled away from the Scene, while because of continuous firing by accused appellants, both deceased died on the spot. It is further stated in the report that because of fear, PW1 Ram Pratap did not come down from the Kotha. Thereafter, the accused appellants ran away. It is further stated in the report that because of fear, PW1 Ram Pratap did not come down from the Kotha. Thereafter, the accused appellants ran away. It is further stated in the report that thereafter PW1 Ram Pratap and PW3 Shiv Prakash came to their village and PW1 Ram Pratap informed to his father PW4 Asharam and also to the villagers about the incident. When PW1 Ram Pratap reported the matter to his father, his father PW4 Asharam also told him that before this incident, in jeep and motor cycle, accused appellants, namely, Hariram, Dungarram, Khyaliram, Raghuveer, Surendra, Banwari, Shankar, and Madanlal and driver of the Jeep, whose name he did not know, came there and took tea and enquired about PW1 Ram Pratap and his sons and it was also informed by the villagers and neighbours that these accused appellants were roaming in the village in search of them and thus, they wanted to kill PW1 Ram Pratap and his sons so that they couid garb his property and in pursuance of that, the accused appellants have killed his sons. On this report, PW19 Vipin Sharma chalked out police FIR Ex. P/2 and started investigation. During investigation, post mortem of the dead body of both the deceased was got conducted by PW18 Dr. Chandra Bhan. The post mortem report of deceased No.1 Rahul is Ex. P/63 and that of deceased No.2 Sidharth is Ex. P/64 and the cause of death as assigned by PW18 Dr. Chandra Bhan in both the post mortem reports was that both deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries of lungs and liver and spinal cord by fire arms. PW2 Bablu Suchit was also got medically examined and his injury report is Ex. P165, which shows that he received a lacerated wound and his X-ray was also taken and the X-ray report is Ex. P159, which shows that on thigh, one metallic devise radio opeque shadow in the soft tissue was detected, it means he also received fire arm injury. Thereafter, accused appellants were arrested through Ex. P121 to P/29 and Ex. P166 and guns and pistols were recovered from them except from accused appellant No. 10 Bhagirath. PW19 Vipin Sharma also prepared site plans Ex. P/3 and Ex. P14. The Inquest Reports of both deceased were also prepared and they are Ex. P/5 and Ex. P/6. Thereafter, accused appellants were arrested through Ex. P121 to P/29 and Ex. P166 and guns and pistols were recovered from them except from accused appellant No. 10 Bhagirath. PW19 Vipin Sharma also prepared site plans Ex. P/3 and Ex. P14. The Inquest Reports of both deceased were also prepared and they are Ex. P/5 and Ex. P/6. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellants in the Court of Magistrate and from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 9.5.1995, the learned trial Judge framed charges against the accused appellants Dungar Ram, Khayali Ram, Banwari Lal, Han Ram, Shankar Lal, Raghuveer Singh, Surendra, Madan Lal and Sohan Lal for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149 IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and against accused appellant Bhagirath for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial. During the course of trial, as many as 20 witnesses have been produced by the prosecution and many documents were got exhibited. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused appellants did not lead any evidence in defence, but got exhibited some documents in their defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3 Sri Ganganagar through his Judgment and order dated 9.1997 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the manner as stated above holding inter- alia:- 1. That both deceased Rahul and Sidharth died because of fire arms injuries and these injuries, which were received by them were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 2. That he had placed reliance on the testimony of PW1 Ram Pratap, PW2 Suchit Bablu and PW3 Shiv Prakash as eye witnesses and all submissions which were raised against their testimony, were rejected by him. 3. That report Ex. P/i was rightly lodged on 7.1994 at 8.00 PM and the submission thai it was not lodged on the same day was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. That the incident took place at 6-6.30 PM on 7.1994 as stated in the report Ex. P/i. 5. 3. That report Ex. P/i was rightly lodged on 7.1994 at 8.00 PM and the submission thai it was not lodged on the same day was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. That the incident took place at 6-6.30 PM on 7.1994 as stated in the report Ex. P/i. 5. That recording of statement Ex.D//3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW3 Shiv Prakash on 17.1994 was not found to be fatal to the prosecution by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the so called delay in recording the said statement was also not found fatal to the prosecution by the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding that if any mistake or dereliction of duty is committed by the Investigating Agency during investigation, it would not affect the teslimony of the witness. 6. That no doubt in the report Ex. P/i, the names of the two accused appellants, namely, Sohan Lal and Bhagirath did not find place, all the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that these two accused appellants were also present at the lime of occurrence and took part in the incident. 7. That all the ten accused appellants formed an unlawful assembly and common object of which was to commit murder of both deceased and also to make a murderous attack on PW2 Suchit Bablu. 8. That since accused appellants fired in prosecution of the common object, therefore, it was not necessary to prove which accused appellant caused particular injury on the body of the deceased. 9. That it is also proved that accused appellants had enmity against PW1 Ram Pratap and his both sons (deceased) over the partition of the property made by PW4 Asharam and thus, accused appellants had strong motive to murder both deceased. 10. That the prosecution witnesses especially. PW1 Ram Pratap, PW2 Suchit Bablu and PW3 Shiv Prakash have given false statement on the point that accused appellant Raghuveer Singh caused gun shot injury to PW2 Suchit Bablu and accused appellant Shankar Lal caused gun shot injury to deceased No.2 Sidharth, as the fact that these three accused appellants individually caused fire arm injuries is not being supported by medical evidence. But, their statement as a whole cannot be disbelieved because if they give false statement on one point, it does not mean that they are telling lie on other points also and thus, the principles of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus would not be applicable in the present case. 11. That the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that these three accused appellants have not fired and according to him, since arms which have been recorded from them cannot tire soft nose copper jacketted projectile therefore, these three accused appellants did not cause any fire arm injury as alleged by the prosecution. 12. That apart from thus, there is also circumstantial evidence on the point that arms have been recovered on the information given by the accused appellants except from accused appellant Bhagirath and this fact also proves the case of the prosecution. Aggrieved from the said Judgment and order dated 9.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Sri Ganganagar, the present appeal has been filed by the accused appellants. 3. In thisappeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused appellants:- 1. That PW4 Asharam has stated that all the accused appellants came to his house at about 7.30 PM on 7.1994 and if they left the house after taking tea, no question arises that incident would have taken place at 6-6.30 PM. Therefore, PW1 Ram Pratap has wrongly reported in his report Ex. P/i that incident took place at 6-6.30 PM to avoid darkness at about 8.00 PM. Thus, it should be held that report Ex. P/i was not lodged at the alleged time of occurrence and it has been lodged after consultations to adjust the timing. 2. That PW1 Ram Pratap, who has lodged the report Ex. P/i, has himself claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence, but since he has no where stated in his statement that after alleged occurrence, he went near the dead body and checked them to be dead and from there he went directly to his house and then from the house directly to the police station, therefore, it means he has not seen the occurrence and, it should be presumed that FIR was not lodged by PW1 Ram Pratap in the manner and timing alleged by him in the report Ex. P/i was concocted one and mentioned after consultations with the police. In other words, report Ex. P/i is not correct picture of the incident and thus, PW1 Ram Pratap cannot be regarded as an eye witness in the present case. 3. That PW2 Bablu Suchit cannot be regarded as an eye witness as his presence on the Scene is doubtful, looking to his conduct. 4. That PW3 Shiv Prakash, who is brother-in-law of PW1 Ram Pratap and Mama of both deceased, cannot also be regarded as eye witness as he is not resident of village Pharsewala and his village is at distance of 30 km. Had he been an eye witness, he would have certainly gone with PW1 Ram Pratap to lodge the report and recording of his statement by police with some delay also gone lo show that he was not an eye witness. 5. That the names of the accused appellants Sohan Lal and Bhagiralh were not mentioned in the report Ex. P/1, therefore, their presence on the spot is doubtful. 6. That looking to the injuries of both deceased, it cannot be inferred that all accused appellants caused fire arm injuries to both deceased and thus, the case of the prosecution that all accused appellants fired on both deceased cannot be accepted. 7. That it is a case of blind murder and all the eye witnesses, who have been produced by the prosecution, are false one and all the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and thus, the whole case should be thrown out and accused appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 8. That prosecution case is false one as empty cartridges have not been recovered from the place of occurrence, as admitted by PWI9 Vipin Sharma, 10 in this case and thus, the incident as alleged by the prosecution has not taken place and true story has been suppressed by the prosecution and from this point of view also, the whole prosecution case should be thrown out. 9. That Inquest Reports Ex. P/S and Ex. P/6 did not disclose the brief facts of the incident and thus, from this point of view also, the report Ex. P/i was not lodged at the time as alleged in that report. Hence, it is prayed that this appeal be allowed and the accused appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 4. P/S and Ex. P/6 did not disclose the brief facts of the incident and thus, from this point of view also, the report Ex. P/i was not lodged at the time as alleged in that report. Hence, it is prayed that this appeal be allowed and the accused appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3 Sri Ganganagar are based on correct appreciation of evidence and thus, no interference is called for with the impugned Judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3 Sri Ganganagar. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case. 6. Before proceeding further, we would like to discuss first the medical evidence. 7. In this case, there are two deceased. The post mortem report of deceased No. 1 Rahul is Ex.P/63 and that of deceased No.2 Sidharth is Ex. P/64 and to prove the post mortem reports Ex.P/63 and Ex. P/64, the prosecution has produced PW1 8 Dr. Chandra Bhan. .8. PW18 Dr. Chandra Bhan states in his statement that on 8.7.1994 he was Sr. Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Ghamudwali and on that day, he conducted post mortem of the dead body of the deceased Rahul and found the following injuries on his body: 1. Multiple lacerated wound of 1/2 cmx 1/2 cm size 30cm x 14cm area on the Lt. side of chest oblique. In direction some are embedded in the wall & some are cavity deep. 2. Lacerated wound with SC orched and tattooed 2 1/4 x 2cm and thoracic cavity deep, oblique. In direction just below and lateral to Rt. nipple, Inverted margins. 3. Lacerated wound size 5cm x 3cm bony deep fracture of middle phalaynx and bones are exposed on the Lt. thumb to palmer side. The cause of death ot deceased Rahul opined by PW1 8 Dr. Chandra Bhan is as follows:- “From the above mentioned observations and findings, the cause of death shock & haemorrhage due to injuries of lungs & liver & spinal cord by fire arm.” PW18 Dr. thumb to palmer side. The cause of death ot deceased Rahul opined by PW1 8 Dr. Chandra Bhan is as follows:- “From the above mentioned observations and findings, the cause of death shock & haemorrhage due to injuries of lungs & liver & spinal cord by fire arm.” PW18 Dr. Chandra Bhan has further stated that on 8.7.1994 he has also conducted post mortem of the dead body of the deceased No.2 Sidharth and found the following injuries on his body:- 1. Lacerated wound 1-1/2 cmx 1-1/4 cmx cavity deep at the level of T11 & T12 with oblique In direction with tattooed with Inverted margin. 2. Lacerated wound size 1-1/4 cm x 1cm x cavity deep. Lt. side of chest at the level of 9th rib. near to strenum with Invested margins. 3. Lacerated wound 3cm x 2cm x cavity deep at the level of 11th rib Rt. side 6cm from the medial line with Everted margins. 4. Lacerated wound size 2cm x 1-1/2 x cavity deep at the RT side of Chief at the level of 10th rib. Lateral side with Everted margins. 5. Lacerated wound size 2cm x 1 1/2 cm muscles deep. Horizontal In Direction lateral side of 12th rib. 6. Contusion 4cm x 1 1/4cm on the pinna of Lt. ear. Note : Injuries 1 & 2 are entrance wound and injuries 3 & 4 are Exit wound. The cause of death of deceased Sidharth as opined by Dr. Chandra Bhan (PW18) is as follows:- “From the above mentioned observations and findings, the cause of death is shock and Haemorrhage due to injuries of lungs & liver & spinal cord by fire arm.” Dr. Chandra Bhan (PW1 8) has proved the post mortem reports Ex. P/63 and Ex. P/64. 9. Thus, from the statement of PW18 Dr. Chandra Bhan and the post mortem reports, it becomes crystal clear that both deceased died because of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries of lunge & liver & spinal cord by fire arm and therefore, death of both the deceased was not natural one and it was homicidal. 10. Before proceeding further, the injury of PW2 Suchit Bablu should also be mentioned here. 11. Theinjury report of PW2 Suchit is Ex. P165 and to prove the same, the prosecution has produced PW1 8 Dr. 10. Before proceeding further, the injury of PW2 Suchit Bablu should also be mentioned here. 11. Theinjury report of PW2 Suchit is Ex. P165 and to prove the same, the prosecution has produced PW1 8 Dr. Chandra Bhan, who states that on 7.1994 he examined PW2 Suchit and found the following injury on his person: 1. Lacerated would 3cm x 1 1/2cm x 1/2 deep with inverted margins, medial side Rt. thigh in middle 1/3. Dr. Chandra Bhan PW1 8 has proved the injury report Ex. P/65. The X-ray of PW2 Suchit was also taken and his X-ray report is Ex. P159 and for proving the same, the prosecution has produced PW17 Om Prakash, who states that on 17.1994 he was Sr. Spl. Radiologist, Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar and took X-ray of right thigh of PW2 Suchit and one metallic devise radio opeque shadow in the soft tissue detected. He has proved the X-ray report Ex. P15 9. 12. Thus, from the injury report Ex. P165, X-ray report Ex. P159 and statements of Dr. Chandra Bhan, PW1 8 and Om Prakash, PW1 7, it is proved that PW2 Suchit received injury on his right thigh, which was caused by fire arm. .13. Before proceeding further, the salient features of the report Ex. P/i may be enumerated here:- 1. That on 7.1994 at about 6.30 PM. PW1 Ram Pratap, his brother-in-law Shiv Prakash, PW3, his both sons deceased and PW2 Bablu Suchit went to his tube well and at that time, PW1 Ram Pratap was sitting on the roof of the room of the tube well and PW3 Shiv Prakash was doing job in his field. 2. That when his both sons deceased and PW2 Bablu Suchit proceeded towards the village on motor-cycle, at that time, a motorcycle came there, on which two accused appellants, namely, Madan and Shankar were sitting and, thereafter, a Jeep came there, in which accused appellants, namely, Dungar Ram, Khyaliram, Raghuveer, Hariram, Surendra and Banwari were sitting and they all were having guns and pistols in their hands. The motor cycle was being driven by accused appellant Madanlal and accused appellant Shankar was sitting behind him and accused appellant Shankar was having a pistol. Thereafter, they all encircled both deceased and PW2 Bablu and told.”AAJ INKA KANTA NIKAL DENGE.” 3. That thereafter, first fire was caused by accused appellant Shankar towards deceased No. 2 Sidharth. The motor cycle was being driven by accused appellant Madanlal and accused appellant Shankar was sitting behind him and accused appellant Shankar was having a pistol. Thereafter, they all encircled both deceased and PW2 Bablu and told.”AAJ INKA KANTA NIKAL DENGE.” 3. That thereafter, first fire was caused by accused appellant Shankar towards deceased No. 2 Sidharth. Thereafter, accused appellant Raghuveer fired on another deceased No. 1 Rahul and accused appellant Dungar Ram fired on PW2 Bablu and, therefore, he ran away. Rest accused appellants also fired. 4. That both deceased died on the spot. 5. That thereafter, accused appellants ran away. 6. That thereafter, PW1 Ram Pratap and PW3 Shiv Prakash came to the village and PW1 Ram Pratap narrated the whole story to his father PW4 Asharam and upon this, PW4 Asharam also told him that accused appellants also came in the evening and enquired about PW1 Ram Pratap and his sons both deceased. 7. That this report was lodged at the Police Station Ghamudwali on 7.1994 at about 8.00 PM and the time of occurrence as mentioned in that report is 6-6.30 PM. 14. The learned counsel of the accused appellants has argued at length on the point that in all circumstances, this report Ex. P/i could not have been lodged with such promptness and in this respect, the conduct of PW1 Ram Pratap appears to be unreasonable, especially when his both sons died, he would lodge the report within one and half hour of the incident. He further argues that in report Ex. P/1, the time of incident as 6-6.30 PM has been intentionally mentioned so that a case for the witnesses could be made out that they saw the occurrence, otherwise incident took place near about 8.00 PM on that day and at that time, darkness must have prevailed and, therefore, there was no occasion to see the occurrence by the alleged eye witnesses. 15. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has met out this argument at page 11 of his impugned Judgment . The learned Addl. Sessions Judge observed that medical examination of PW2 Bablu Suchit was got conducted by Dr. Chandra Bhan, PW1 8 at 9.05 PM on 7.1994 and the same was done by him at the requisition of the police and the injury report of PW2 Bablu is Ex. P165. According to the learned Addl. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge observed that medical examination of PW2 Bablu Suchit was got conducted by Dr. Chandra Bhan, PW1 8 at 9.05 PM on 7.1994 and the same was done by him at the requisition of the police and the injury report of PW2 Bablu is Ex. P165. According to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, this fact itself goes to show that report Ex. P/1 was presented in the Police Station by PW1 Ram Pratap on 7.1994 at 8.0 PM and, thereafter, medical examination took place. Therefore, he came to the conclusion that in all respect, report Ex. P/1 was lodged at 8.00 PM on 7.1994 and no question of doubt arises. 16. In our considered opinion, the above tindings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge appear to be correct one as they are based on correct appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case. 17. Theargument that since both sons (deceased) of PW1 Ram Pratap were murdered, therefore, Ram Pratap first would weep for them and he would not lodge the report so promptly, is not tenable, rather promptness shows that PW1 Ram Pratap was present on the Scene and that is why, he lodged the report with promptness. Thus, in lodging the report so promptly, the conduct of PW1 Ram Pratap cannot be said to be unnatural one. 18. It may be stated here that the alleged incident took place in the month of July and the time of alleged incident as mentioned in the report Ex. P/i is 6-6.30 PM and in the month of July, at 6-6.30 PM, sufficient light remains available. Apart form this, if PW4 Asharam has said that accused appellants came to his house in the evening at 7.00 PM, it does not mean that this time should be taken as a final one and the word “evening” by a rustic man may be 6.00 PM or 6.30 PM or 7.00 PM. The witnesses from the village are usually ignorant about the dates, months and timing. Therefore, mere fact that in the present case, PW4 Asharam has said that occurrence took place at about 7.00 PM, it would not discredit the version given by PW1 Rain Pratap in his report Ex. P/1. 19. Therefore, from every point of view, it is held that the report Ex. Therefore, mere fact that in the present case, PW4 Asharam has said that occurrence took place at about 7.00 PM, it would not discredit the version given by PW1 Rain Pratap in his report Ex. P/1. 19. Therefore, from every point of view, it is held that the report Ex. P/i was lodged by PW1 Ram Pratap at 8.00 PM on 7.1994 and the incident took place at about 6-6.30 PM and the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in this respect are liable to be confirmed. 20. Thus, the above argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellants stands rejected: 21. Beforeproceeding further and before appreciating the evidence ot eye witnesses, something should be said about motive. 22. The motive is that which moves a man to do a particular act. There can be ho action without a motive, which must exist for every voluntary act. Motive plays an impdrtant role and becomes a compelling force to do a crime. Therefore, motive behind the crime is relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. The evidence of motive is material in criminal cases. To say that motive is an important factor only in circumstantial evidence is a wrong conception. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in State of UP v. Baguram, 2000 (4) SCC 5151, has held that motive is equally relevant where case is based on direct evidence and where the case is based on circumstantial evidence. .23. Therefore, since the present case is based on direct evidence, motive would also be very much relevant and the same is found in the report Ex. P/1 and also in the statement of PW1 Ram Pratap. Thus, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that accused party had strong motive against PW1 Ram Pratap and his both sons deceased are liable to be confirmed. .On Eye witnesses .24. In this case, as per report Ex. P/1, there are three eye witnesses of the alleged incident, namely, 1. PW1 Ram Pratap (lodger of the report Ex. P/1 and father of both deceased). 2. PW2 Bablu Suchit (friend of both eceased) 3. PW3 Shiv Prakash. (brother-in-law of PW1 Ram Pratap and Mama of both deceased. and their presence is mentioned in the report Ex. P/i and that report was lodged just after the occurrence. PW1 Ram Pratap (lodger of the report Ex. P/1 and father of both deceased). 2. PW2 Bablu Suchit (friend of both eceased) 3. PW3 Shiv Prakash. (brother-in-law of PW1 Ram Pratap and Mama of both deceased. and their presence is mentioned in the report Ex. P/i and that report was lodged just after the occurrence. This is one of the aspects of the case to see whether these witnesses were present on the Scene or not. 25. Thelearned counsel for the accused appellants has argued at length that these witnesses could have never been on the spot or if they were on the spot, they could have never seen the occurrence and, therefore, their evidence has been wrongly relied upon by the learned trial Judge as eye witnesses and their evidence should have been rejected. 26. The learned counsel for the accused appellants argues that so far as alleged eye witness PW3 Shiv Prakash is concerned, he is an interested witness, as he is Mama of both deceased and, therefore, his presence is very much doubtful and his name has been intentionally added to make the case strong one. In this respect, he has further argued that though the incident took place on 7.1994, his statement was recorded on 17.1994 and thus, from this point of view also, he appears to be a false witness. 27. For PW1 Ram Pratap, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that since there was darkness at the time of alleged incident, therefore, no question of seeing the incident by him arises. 28. Sofar as alleged eye witness PW2 Bablu Suchit is concerned, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that first he does not know the name of accused appellants as he has admitted in his statement as PW2 and furthermore, he ran away from the Scene and, therefore, his conduct is not natural one and thus, his evidence should have been disbelieved. 29. To appreciate the above contentions, it may be stated here at the very outset that so far as the presence of PW2 Bablu Suchit at the place of occurrence is concerned, since he is an injured witness, therefore, his presence on the Scene cannot be doubted, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avdesh & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1995 SC 375 . v. State of U.P., AIR 1995 SC 375 . In this respect, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1995 SCC (Cri) 355, may also be referred to. .30. It may be stated here that when dealing with the serious question of the guilt or innocence of persons charged with crime, the following general rules may be helpful to the Court for determining whether the evidence in a particular case is admissible or not: 1. Theonus of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against the accused lies on the prosecutor. 2. The evidence must be such as to excludes, to a moral certainty, every reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. 3. In matters of doubt it is safer to acquit than to condemn, since it is better that several guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer. 4. There must be clear and unequivocal proof of the corpus delicit (substance of the offence). 5. The hypothesis of delinquency should be consistent with all the facts proved. 1.31. It may be further stated here that the fact that a witness improves his testimony at the trial does not ruin the value of his testimony in its entirety. 2.32. It may further be stated here especially for PW2 Bablu Suchit, who is an injured witness, that where sufficient accused persons suddenly attacked the victim party with fire arm and one of the victim gets injured and he ran away, his testimony could not be discarded on the basis that he has left the place of occurrence and such type of conduct cannot be called unnatural one. 3.33. TheHon’ble Supreme Court in State of UP v. Noorie, AIR 1996 SC 3073 , has held that for appreciating the evidence of eye witnesses, the Court has to adhere to two principles: 1. Whether it was possible