K. K. MISRA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12-12-1980 passed by Sri S. M. A. Khusro, the then IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Session Trial No. 137 of 1980, convicting the appellants and sentencing each of them for imprisonment of life under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC ). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Ram Swaroop resident of village Asneti, Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh was killed a few yards away from his house little before the sunset on 23-7-1978 at 7. 00 p. m. The reason why the deceased was killed at the hands of his own nephews, as furnished by the prosecution, is that there used to reside in the village a washerwoman, by the name of Dana. Dana had a daughter named Kusuma, aged about 17-18 years. The two accused-appellants- Surendra and Chhotey Lal had illicit relationship with her and as a result of which she is said to have conceived. Thereafter, both these accused-appellants are said to have made her abort. Two days before the murder of Ram Swaroop the said washer-women Dana came to Ram Swaroop deceased with some persons and complained about the aforesaid matter relating to her daughter. The deceased pacified her and told her that he would look into the matter. Something transpired, between the deceased and his nephews Surendra and Chhotey Lal that was not known. 3. Next day at about 7 p. m. little before sunset. Resham Pal P. W. 1, the son of the deceased, as well as the deceased Ram Swaroop were sitting in front of their house when the two accused Surendra and Chhotey Lal passed that way. The deceased Ram Swaroop stopped them and told them that the family was being disgraced because of the incident relating to Dana. The accused is said to have expressed displeasure on this obtrusive attitude on the part of the deceased and went away grumbling. 4. Next day in the evening a little before the sunset all the four accused Surendra, Chhotey Lal, Om Prakash and Jai Prakash are said to have gone to the house of the deceased. The accused Surendra and Jai Prakash were carrying country-made pistols, the accused Chhotey Lal was carrying a Pharsa and accused Om Prakash a spear. 4. Next day in the evening a little before the sunset all the four accused Surendra, Chhotey Lal, Om Prakash and Jai Prakash are said to have gone to the house of the deceased. The accused Surendra and Jai Prakash were carrying country-made pistols, the accused Chhotey Lal was carrying a Pharsa and accused Om Prakash a spear. The deceased Ram Swaroop was going to his Nohra after his evening meals and he had hardly proceeded about 15 paces when he was accosted by these four accused near the Chabutra of one Ram Swaroop Mall. The accused Surendra told the deceased that he thought himself to be an incarnation of justice and then fired upon him with his country-made pistol as a consequence of which the deceased Ram Swaroop fell down on the ground. Thereafter the two accused Chhotey Lal and Om Prakash be laboured him with the Pharsa and the spear and then the accused Jai Prakash is also said to have fired upon him. Ram Swaroop deceased is said to have died instantaneously on the spot. P. W. 2 Devi Charan and P. W. 4 Smt. Buddo, daughter of the deceased, also saw the occurrence. An F. I. R. of the incident was lodged on 23-7-1978 at 11. 35 p. m. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case had examined 6 witnesses, P. W. 1 Resham Pal son of the deceased and is the informant. P. W. 2 Devi Charan, P. W. 3 Constable Ram Das Yadav. He has proved Ext. Ka-2 the written report, P. W. 4 Smt. Buddhi Devi the married daughter of the deceased, P. W. 5 Dr. K. P. Singh who had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 6 S. K. Yadav who had proved the site plan and has also proved Ext. Ka-7 i. e. the recovery of blood stained earth from the spot. P. W. 5 Dr. K. P. Singh found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: (1) Incised wound 2" x 1/4" x bone deep outer left side head. (2) Incised wound 1. 1/2" x 1/10" x scalp deep over left side head 1" below the injury No. 1. (3) Incised wound 1. 1/2" x 1/10" x scalp deep outer left occipital. (4) Incised wound 1. 1/4" x 1/4" x nipple cavity deep outer right side neck 1. (2) Incised wound 1. 1/2" x 1/10" x scalp deep over left side head 1" below the injury No. 1. (3) Incised wound 1. 1/2" x 1/10" x scalp deep outer left occipital. (4) Incised wound 1. 1/4" x 1/4" x nipple cavity deep outer right side neck 1. 1/2" below the right ear. (5) Incised wound 1. 1/2" x 1/10" x muscle deep on the front side right of arm. (6) Incised wound 3. 1/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the right lower part of the arm. (7) Incised wound 1. 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the backside right elbow. (8) Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the right back of the chest in the post auxiliary bone 5. 1/2" below the nipple at 10 oclock position. (9) Gun shot wound of entry six in number in an area (2-1/2" x 2. 1/2") over right chest in mid auxiliary. Tattooing and charring found inverted margin. (10) Abrasion 3/4" x 1/10" over right (sic ). (11) Gunshot wound injury (six) in an area 2. 1/2" on backside hip size 2/10" x 2/10" x muscle deep ). Tattooing and charring present, margin inverted. (12) Stab wound 2. 1/2" x 1. 1/2" x abdomen cavity deep on the right lower part of the abdomen through which loop of the intestine came out. (13) Linear abrasion 1/10" x 1/10" area over right posterior shoulder. (14) Lacerated abrasion 2. 1/2" x 1/10" on the right shoulder. (15) Lacerated abrasion 1. 1/2" x 1/10" on the medial of back. 6. The Post-mortem Report is Ext. Ka-4. The doctor has opined that injuries Nos. 9 and 11 were gun shot wounds and there was charring and tattooing in the injuries. 7. The eye witnesses account has been given by witness Resham Pal P. W. 1 who is the son of the deceased and is the real sister Smt. Buddhi Devi P. W. 4 and Devi Charan P. W. 2. Thus the testimony of these witnesses which has to be scruitinized in order to ascertain the veracity of the prosecution case. P. W. 1 Resham Pal who is the first informant has narrated the prosecution story. Thus the testimony of these witnesses which has to be scruitinized in order to ascertain the veracity of the prosecution case. P. W. 1 Resham Pal who is the first informant has narrated the prosecution story. The prosecution allegation in this connection is that the two accused Surendra and Chhotey Lal had illicit relations with Kusuma, the daughter of Dana, a washerwoman in the village, and the accused manipulated an abortion in that connection Dana had complained to the deceased because the deceased happened to be the real uncle of these two accused persons. When the deceased told about this incident to these accused persons, they were annoyed. This motivational circumstance finds mention in the F. I. R. and in the statement of P. W. 1, who testified about the motive. There is no sufficient reason to disbelieve the statement of P. W. 1 in this regard. So far as the alleged motive is concerned, no body was present at that time to narrate the reasons of annoyance of the offenders. 8. P. W. 1 in his statement has stated that two accused Surendra and Chhotey Lal had illicit relation with Kusuma the daughter of washerwoman Dana. She had become pregnant and the accused manipulated abortion. Smt. Dana had complained to the deceased and this according to the prosecution is the motive which is also mentioned in the F. I. R. P. W. 1 has testified about the incident and had stated that about 7 p. m. in the evening the deceased Ram Swarup was going to sleep at his Nohra and when he reached the Chabutra of Ram Swaroop Mall at a distance of 15 paces then all the assailants came near the deceased and rebuked him and accused Surendra was armed with country-made pistol, Om Prakash was armed with Gun, Chhotey Lal was armed with spear and Bhoora was also having a Katta. Accused Surendra fired at the deceased with his country-made pistol and on that the deceased fell down on the ground and after that Chhotey Lal caused injuries to the deceased by Pharsa, Om Prakash had caused injuries by spear and after that Bhoora accused has also caused injuries to the deceased by fire-arm. On raising alarm by the first informant, Ganga Prasad, Buddhi and Chandrapal had reached the spot and the accused had run away towards Lal Garhi. On raising alarm by the first informant, Ganga Prasad, Buddhi and Chandrapal had reached the spot and the accused had run away towards Lal Garhi. The report of the incident was lodged by the first informant and is annexed as Ext. Ka-1. In the cross-examination the learned counsel for the defence had suggested about certain cases fought between the parties which was denied by P. W. 1. It was also suggested that the deceased was a pocket witness of the police which was vehemently denied by P. W-1 regarding the motive. It was suggested that no complaint was lodged and no medical examination of pregnant Kusuma was conducted by any doctor. In cross examination P. W. 2 has also admitted that on the day of incident he was to sleep near his father. He had also stated then that when he last saw the accused and the deceased they were at the distance of 1 and 1 1/2 hands away from that spot. He was hit by the country-made pistol and he fell down on the ground and then he saw accused Jai Prakash also there and that he had also deposed as a substantive piece of evidence in the Court that the accused were carrying Pharsa and Ballam and had caused injuries to the deceased when he had fallen on the ground. He has also stated that he does not know the difference between Ballam and Pharsa. He has further admitted that the I. O. has reached the place of occurrence at about 12 or 12. 30 in the night. It was suggested by the learned counsel for the defence that the incident had not taken place as alleged by P. W. 1 in the Court. He was also contradicted with the F. I. R. regarding the fact that at the time of the incident he was standing there, but the I. O. had not recorded this fact which he could not explain. 9. P. W. 2 Devi Charan has supported the prosecution case as alleged by the first informant in the F. I. R. He has stated on oath that after receiving shot from Surendra accused, the deceased fell down on the ground and after that Chhotey Lal and Om Prakash had caused injuries by Pharsa and Ballam and after that Jai Prakash alias Bhoora had fired upon the deceased with his country-made pistol. He had also admitted the presence of P. W. 1 Resham Pal, witness Ganga Prasad, Smt. Buddhi and Chandrapal and others and had also testified to the fact that the deceased Ram Swarup had died on the spot. In the cross-examination it was suggested that P. W. 2 was learning the job of Munshi and was attached to Prem Shankar Pachauri. The said witness had also admitted in his cross-examination that besides Munshigiri he looks after his cultivation also. P. W. 2 was confronted with regard to certain litigations which had taken place in 1975-76 between the father of the witness and the deceased Ram Swaroop and P. W. 1 Resham Pal were accused in 1975- 76. It was suggested that because of the cases which had taken place in 1975-76, the present witness was inimical to the accused. This fact was denied by the witness. P. W. 2 in his chief has stated that he saw the incident when he was returning from attending the call of nature. The defence has challenged this but has not succeeded. The last witness of fact is the daughter of the deceased Smt. Buddhi P. W. 4. At the time of incident she was unmarried and 3, 4 months prior to recording her statement she got married. She has admitted in her statement that Surendra and Chhotey Lal accused are her first cousins. She has also admitted that she knows Om Prakash and Jai Prakash prior to the incident. She has admitted that accused Om Prakash and Jai Prakash were known to her prior to the incident and they are related to Surendra and Chhotey Lal. She has stated that she was going to Norha from where she heard the gun shot and had heard the voice of first informant and when she reached near the Chabutara of Ram Swaroop Mall then she saw the accused persons with their respective weapons and had supported the prosecution case. She had also stated that with folded hands she had prayed to the accused not to kill her father but the accused persons did not yield to her request and had done to death the deceased on the spot. She had also stated that with folded hands she had prayed to the accused not to kill her father but the accused persons did not yield to her request and had done to death the deceased on the spot. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of incident the present witness was unmarried and she had come to the Court to depose against her first cousins and relations of the first cousins to whom she had appealed not to kill her father. During her statement in the trial Court at page 23 of the paper book the trial Judge has recorded the demeanour of the witness. The learned trial Court had observed in the order-sheet that this witness Buddhi started weeping while describing the murder of her father and started sobbing and crying in the open Court. This natural conduct of the witness goes to show the naturalness, the simplicity and the trustworthiness of the witness. 10. P. W. 5 Dr. K. P. Singh had conducted the post mortem examination on the person of the deceased on 24-7-78 at Civil Hospital, Aligarh at 4. 45 p. m. The deadbody was brought by Bali Singh and Het Ram Constables. He had stated that the injury might have been caused on 23-7-78 at 7. 00 p. m. He had also stated that from the mouth of the deceased some digested food was coming out and had admitted that the deceased must have taken food between half and after 4 hours prior to the incident. He had also recovered 10 pellets from the body of the deceased and had stated that there was choking and tattooing in both the injuries of fire-arms caused to the deceased. In his cross examination he has admitted that so far as the time of death is concerned, there could be a variation of 6 hours. In the stomach of the deceased there was 4 ozs semi-digested food and there was gases and fickle matter. So far as injury Nos. 13, 14 and 15 are concerned, he has stated that it could have been caused by hard object and regarding injury No. 11 he had stated that it could have been caused if the accused had fired from back also. In his opinion the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries. 11. 13, 14 and 15 are concerned, he has stated that it could have been caused by hard object and regarding injury No. 11 he had stated that it could have been caused if the accused had fired from back also. In his opinion the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries. 11. P. W. 6 is the S. O. who had stated that the case was registered in front of him. He has investigated the matter and had recorded the statement of the witness on 24-7-78. He had reached the place of occurrence on 24-7-78 and had filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons which is Ext. Ka-8. He was cross-examined by the defence on various points, but the defence has not found any substantial points from him to support their case, but instead had given suggestion for suggestion sake. 12. The following documents were filed by the accused persons. The defence version was of denial and the learned senior counsel Shri G. S. Chaturvedi has convassed mainly 3 points: (1) That the motive as alleged by the prosecution is very week piece of evidence. (2) 4 Ozs. semi digested food found in the stomach of the deceased at the time of his post mortem which goes to show that the incident had taken place in the night and nobody had seen the incident. (3) No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution and the witnesses are interested and related to each other. 13. We have gone through the statements of the witnesses very carefully in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defence. 14. So far as the point No. 1 is concerned, it is true that the motive as alleged by the prosecution can be interpreted as a weak evidence, but it is difficult to judge the mind of a criminal, if it is taken seriously the rebuke of his elder because their position in the eye of law and the society was lowered because of the stand taken by the deceased. It is certain that they had not relished this fact. 15. So far as point No. 2 is concerned that there was semi digested food in the stomach. No doubt the doctor has stated that there can be fluctuation of 6 hours. It is certain that they had not relished this fact. 15. So far as point No. 2 is concerned that there was semi digested food in the stomach. No doubt the doctor has stated that there can be fluctuation of 6 hours. So far as time of death is concerned but this type of suggestion was not given by the defence to any of the witnesses. 16. So far as the third point is concerned that the witnesses are not independent, this fact very strongly goes against the accused persons, because if the first cousins are deposing against the accused because of murder of their father why will they implicate the first cousins who are not real assailants. Besides this fact we have very carefully examined the evidence of all the witnesses and so far as the causing of injuries are concerned there is not even a single material contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses of fact. 17. Ext. Ka-7 is the recovery memo of soil and blood taken from the place of occurrence. Ext. Ka-7 demonstrates that the earth and blood stained mud were recovered and they were sent to serologist. Needless to say that incident had taken place during the rainy season and there is evidence to this effect that there was Nali and blood was recovered from that place. It was also mentioned that the chemical analysts report shows that there was human blood stained on the Dhoti as well as soil is concerned the contention with regard to integrated blood in item Nos. 3 and 4 in the report is concerned is neither here nor there. The defence has also not cared to bring on record anything to show that as to what advantage the defence could have got if he wanted to suggest that the dead body was removed from the scene of occurrence. 18. Lastly it was submitted by the learned counsel for the defence that on the same evidence accused Jai Prakash and Om Prakash were acquitted by the trial Court and in view of the acquittal of Jai Prakash and Om Prakash who has been given the benefit of doubt by the trial Court with the aid of Section 34 I. P. C. no conviction can be recorded against the present appellants. 19. Learned A. G. A. from the side of the State Mr. 19. Learned A. G. A. from the side of the State Mr. R. K. Singh has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1991 SCC 519 , Barthi alias Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab. The other decision on which reliance has been placed is reported in AIR 1993 SC 1386 , Krishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan. The Apex Court in both the cases has held, if the trial Court had given benefit of doubt to one co- accused and acquitted him, same does not affect evidence of eye witnesses. In the present case also participation of Jai Prakash and Om Prakash co-accused has been fully established by prosecution witnesses, but trial Court gave benefit of doubt to them saying that they could have been falsely implicated. That view of the trial Court to our mind is absolutely wrong. Since no appeal or revision has been preferred by the State or the counsel for the complainant, the order passed by the trial Court though bad in law, cannot be interfered with after a lapse of 22 years. Therefore, the mere fact that two of the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be a sufficient ground to discard the entire prosecution case and to acquit the appellants. 20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and order dated 12-12-1980 passed by Sri S. M. A. Khusro, the then IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Session Trial No. 137 of 1980 convicting the appellants and sentencing each of them for imprisonment of life under Section 302/34 I. P. C. is affirmed as the accused Surendra and Chhotey Lal are found guilty of the offences under Section 302/34 I. P. C. and are accordingly convicted thereunder. They are on bail, they shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining sentences. Their bail bonds and sureties cancelled and discharged. In the result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .