JUDGMENT : P. C. AGARWAL, J. : II A. S. J. Bhind in his S. T. No. 19/85 (State of M. P. vs. Jagannath Singh and 3 others) on 21-10-1986 convicted these appellants and their father Jagannath Singh under section 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (to be called as Code hereafter) and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for one year and life imprisonment with a direction for concurrent execution of both Aggrieved thereby, this appeal was filed on 18-11-1986. 2. Jagannath Singh who was father of these appellants died during the pendency of appeal. Thus, his appeal has abated and his name has been deleted vide order dated 23-2-1998. 3. As per prosecution, parties were not on good terms due to some election disputes. On 28-2-1984, deceased Keshav Singh had lodged a report (Ex. P/4) against Ram Naresh (A-2) and Rajendra Singh alias Raju (A-1) and others whereby as offence under sections 452, 323, 427/34 of the Code was registered by the Police and a criminal case was pending in Court on 22-7-1984, at about 6 p.m. Ram Naresh (A-2) armed with a Katta (country made pistol) and other appellants with late Jagannath Singh with two unknown persons armed with knives pursued deceased Keshav Singh. Ram Naresh (A-2) fired his Katta on deceased Keshav Singh causing injuries on his back, waist and hips. Deceased Keshav Singh fell down. Rajendra Singh (A-1), Ram Suresh (A-3) and late Jagannath Singh and two other unknown persons stabbed deceased Keshav Singh who succumbed to his injuries on spot. Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1) and Narendra Singh (P.W. 2) witnessed the occurrence. Ram Naresh (A-2) and Ram Suresh (A-3) went to the house of deceased Keshav Singh and fired a gun shot there also and then left away. Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) was scribed at 11 p.m. the same day by Loknath Singh (P.W. 9), S. O. who have reached there with his staff. As per prosecution, Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) was sent to P. S. Umari by hand of Baburam Awasthy (P.W. 5), head constable. Nathuram Parashar (P.W. 6), head constable registered the crime vide Ex. P/4. Loknath Singh (P.W. 9) after giving notice (Ex. P/9) to Panch witnesses prepared inquest memo Ex. P/10. He seized blood stained and simple earth vide Ex. P/11. He prepared spot map Ex. P/2. He sent dead body for post mortem examination vide Ex. P/7. Nathuram Parashar (P.W. 6), head constable registered the crime vide Ex. P/4. Loknath Singh (P.W. 9) after giving notice (Ex. P/9) to Panch witnesses prepared inquest memo Ex. P/10. He seized blood stained and simple earth vide Ex. P/11. He prepared spot map Ex. P/2. He sent dead body for post mortem examination vide Ex. P/7. Dr. N. C. Mishra (P.W. 8) conducted autopsy on dead body and noted following external injuries on it vide Ex. P/8 :- 1. L. W. 3cm x 1 cm x cavity deep over left Lt. Ant. Axillery forte in middle. 2. I. W. 2 cm x 1.5 cm x ½ cm on the left side of neck in middle. 3. I. W. 3 cm x 1 cm x ½ cm over the right shoulder post. 4. I.W. 2 cm x 1 cm x ½ cm over left flank post. 5. Pellet marks seen 13 in number Rt. side in the area of right axillery. Injuries from 5th I/C to Superior Spine and upto Ant. Axillery region and post upto flank measuring 2 cm x 1 cm, 1 cm x 1 cm and 1 cm x ¾ cm. They are subcutaneous except two which are placed high up at 8th rib in Ant. Axillery line and out of 9th I/C Space placed between Ant. Axillery line and mid clavicular line 2 cm x 1 cm and upto two cuts. On internal examination it was found that right lung was engorged spongy and haemorrhagic plenal cavity filled, with blood. Two pallets mark seen at the Ant. lateral border through and through Left lung completely collapsed through and through. No blood on cut. There is wound through and through on the Ant. surface of middle size 2.5 cm x 1cm. Heart and blood vessels empty. Despite extensive search no pallet could be found. Cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to chest injury. Death was homicidal. Clothes of deceased were taken out, sealed and handed over to the constable. 4. On 21-8-1984 on discovery made by Rajendra Singh alias Raju (A-1) a knife was seized from him. F.S. L. confirmed the presence of blood on blood stained earth seized from the spot and knife stained earth seized from the spot and knife seized from Rajendra alias Raju (A-1). 4. On 21-8-1984 on discovery made by Rajendra Singh alias Raju (A-1) a knife was seized from him. F.S. L. confirmed the presence of blood on blood stained earth seized from the spot and knife stained earth seized from the spot and knife seized from Rajendra alias Raju (A-1). After due investigation, charge sheet was filed first against late Jagannath Singh and Rajendra Singh alias Raju (A-1) on 12-10-1984. Lateron Ram Naresh Singh (A-2) and Ram Suresh Singh (A-3) were also arrested and supplementary charge sheet was filed against them. Anyhow, the whereabouts of two unknown persons could not be known and thus they were not put to trial. 5. Appellants pleaded not guilty. Late Jagannath Singh claimed that he was at Lashkar at the time of offence. Though, there were elections but there was no enmity. Anyhow, he claimed that prosecution witnesses have spoken against him due to enmity. Ram Naresh (A-2) claimed that some old litigation was there between them and deceased Keshav Singh but these appellants had no grudge. They claim that the prosecution witnesses have falsely implicated them in this offence. 6. The learned trial Court believing the prosecution version convicted these three appellants and their father Jagannath Singh and sentenced all of them as aforesaid. 7. Here in this appeal, the appellants have claimed themselves to be innocent. Their Advocate has vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the prosecution evidence. According to him only interested and related witnesses have been examined while independent witnesses have been withheld. The only independent witness Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 4) has not supported the case of prosecution. He claims that there has been conflict between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. According to him, the Dehati Nalishi has been scribed after through deliberations between the prosecution witnesses and Loknath Singh (P. W. 9), S. O. First report has been suppressed. Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) and F. I. R. (Ex. P/4) cannot be relied upon. According to him the prosecution has concocted a false case. 8. On the other hand learned Government Advocate has supported the judgment. According to him the view of trial Court who has seen the witnesses and their demeanour at the time of recording evidence has to be given due weight. P/4) cannot be relied upon. According to him the prosecution has concocted a false case. 8. On the other hand learned Government Advocate has supported the judgment. According to him the view of trial Court who has seen the witnesses and their demeanour at the time of recording evidence has to be given due weight. According to him on fault could be found in appreciation of evidence to warrant any interference in the finding of facts recorded by the trial Court. 9. Homicidal death of deceased Keshav Singh has been well proved by statements of Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1), his real brother, Harendra Singh (P.W. 2), his son, Vimlesh (P.W. 3), his young grand daughter. Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 4) also supports this part of story. Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) and FIR (Ex. P/4) also support such story. Baburam Awasthy (P.W. 5), head constable has also seen dead body of deceased. Loknath Singh (P.W. 9) S. O., Umari has not only seen dead body but has also prepared inquest memo (Ex. P/10). After giving notice to Panch witnesses he had sent the dead body for post mortem vide Ex. P/7. Dr. N. C. Mishra (P.W. 8) after post mortem examination of the dead body has held that deceased Keshav Singh had fire arm injuries on his person and four incised wounds. According to him the deceased has died due to excessive haemorrhage and shock. All such injuries were ante mortem and were homicidal. There has been no serious challenge to this part of the story. Thus the finding of the trial Court that deceased Keshav Singh has died due to fire arm injuries and incised wounds on his person and his death was homicidal has to be confirmed. 10. The Trial Court has recorded conviction of these appellants and late Jagnnath Singh on statements of Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1), the real brother, and Narendra Singh (P.W. 2), the son of the deceased. Both of them claim themselves to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1) was going to take Bidi to the Bidi shop and in the way had seen deceased Keshav Singh being pursued by these appellants with late Jagannath Singh and two unknown persons. Ram Naresh Singh (A-2) had fired on deceased Keshav Singh who had fallen down. Both of them claim themselves to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1) was going to take Bidi to the Bidi shop and in the way had seen deceased Keshav Singh being pursued by these appellants with late Jagannath Singh and two unknown persons. Ram Naresh Singh (A-2) had fired on deceased Keshav Singh who had fallen down. Rajendra Singh alias Raju (A-1), Ram Suresh Singh (A-3), late Jagannath Singh and two unknown persons had stabbed the deceased Keshav Singh. Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1) had concealed himself in the side lane due to fear. Deceased Keshav Singh had succumbed to his injuries on spot. Harendra Singh (P.W. 2) had reached the spot hearing report of firing and saw Ram Naresh Singh (A-2) with a Katta (Country made pistol). Deceased Keshav Singh was lying on earth. Ram Suresh Singh (A-3), Rajendra Singh alias Raju (A-1), late Jagnnath Singh and two other unknown persons were stabbing deceased Keshav Singh who had died on spot. Statements of both these witnesses are well supported by Vimlesh (P.W. 3), daughter of the deceased to whom both these witnesses had reiterated the story naming these appellants and Jagannath Singh as assailants. Further, Ram Naresh Singh A-2) and Ram Suresh Singh (A-3) had been to the house of deceased Keshav and threatened Vimlesh (P.W. 3) and fired a gun shot from Katta, discharge of which had landed in the wall. Statements of these three witnesses have been quite natural. They have faired well the detailed and searching cross-examination. This story is well supported by Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) reported by Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1) at 11 P.M. in the same night. Loknath Singh (P.W. 9) who was S. O., Umari then had scribed this Dehati Nalishi and had sent the same for registration to P. S. Umari by hand of Baburam Awasthy (P.W. 5), head constable who has supported such story. Nathuram Parashar (P.W. 6), head constable recorded F.I.R. (Ex. P/4) at about 2 a.m. on 23-7-1984 and registered the crime. P.S. Umari is stiuate at a distance of about 10 kms from village Pulawali. Dr. N. C. Mishra (P.W. 8) has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body and has noted injuries vide Ex. P/10 detailed in para 3 of this judgment. P/4) at about 2 a.m. on 23-7-1984 and registered the crime. P.S. Umari is stiuate at a distance of about 10 kms from village Pulawali. Dr. N. C. Mishra (P.W. 8) has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body and has noted injuries vide Ex. P/10 detailed in para 3 of this judgment. As per Doctor, injury numbers 1 to 4 were caused by sharp edged weapon like knife, while, injury No. 5 was caused by discharge of fire arm. As already seen, Doctor has testified that the death of deceased Keshav Singh was homicidal. Thus, medical evidence has supported the prosecution version fully. 11. Loknath Singh (P.W. 9), I. O. prepared inquest memo (Ex. P/10) after giving notice (Ex. P/9) to Panch witnesses. He prepared a spot map (Ex. P/2). He on 29-8-1984 arrested Rajendra Singh alias Raju (A-1) and on discovery made by him vide Ex. P/12, a Rampuri spring operated knife was seized from him vide Ex. P/13. Report of F.S. L. on record supports the finding of blood marks on this knife seized from Rajendra Singh alias Raju (A-1). This also lends assurance to the prosecution case. 12. While late Jagannath Singh had claimed alibi and examined Mahesh Chandra Agrawal (D.W.1) in his support, the present appellants have merely claimed innocence and have not taken any specific defence. Their plea of ignorance does not rebut the overwhelming prosecution evidence. The learned trial Court has given cogent and sound reasons for discrediting the evidence of Mahesh Chandra Agrawal (D.W.1) which actually does not improablize the presence of late Jagannath Singh on spot. This blend statement that he had always seen late Jagannath Singh and these appellants at Shinde Ki Chhawani is not enough to prove that late Jagannath Singh or appellants could not be at Pulawali on the date of occurrence. Of course, his shop is situate at a distance of one mile from his Ration shop where he remains between 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. Even entries in Roznamacha (Ex. D/2) do not establish anything. Neither its scribe is examined nor its regular maintenance has been proved. The entry of 22-7-1984 clearly does not prove presence of late Jagannath Singh at the Naka and thus his presence on spot is not disproved. 13. D/2) do not establish anything. Neither its scribe is examined nor its regular maintenance has been proved. The entry of 22-7-1984 clearly does not prove presence of late Jagannath Singh at the Naka and thus his presence on spot is not disproved. 13. Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1), Harendra Singh (P.W. 2) have claimed that due to Panchayat election relations of late Jagannath Singh and his sons (the appellants here) were not cordial with deceased Keshav Singh. Mahadev Singh Kushwaha (P.W.7) who was S. O. Umari on 28-2-1984 has proved Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) reported by deceased Keshav Singh on 28-2-1984 wherein a crime under section 452, 336, 427/34 of the Code was registered against Ram Naresh Singh (A-2), Rajendra Singh alias Raju (A-1), Harnarayan and other unknown persons. Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1) and Harendra Singh (P.W. 2) have claimed that a criminal case was pending on such report in the criminal Court. As it is due to this incident Jagganath Singh and appellants had left the village Pulawali and went to reside at Shinde Ki Chawani, Lashkar, Harnarayan is cousin of Rajendra Singh alias Raju (A-1) and Ram Naresh Singh (A-2) (See para 6 of Vishwanath Singh, P.W. 1). It is notworthy that present is a case wherein eye-witnesses are there to prove it and motive of the crime is not material nor need be proved to record conviction. See Datar Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 1193 , Fraquira vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 915 and State of Harayana vs. Sher Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1021 . Anyhow, in the present case, motive was not altogether absent. 14. Learned Advocate for the appellants has vehemently argued that Vishwanath (P.W. 1) being brother, Harendra Singh (P.W. 2) being son and Vimlesh (P.W. 3) being daughter of deceased Keshave Singh are not independent witnesses. It is claimed that they are interested in the success of the prosecution. However, Normally close relatives of deceased are not likely to falsely implicate a person in the incident leading to the death of relation and absolving the real culprits unless their are very strong and cogent reasons to do so. See State of Rajasthan vs. Hanuman AIR 2001 SC 282 , Chandra Bihari Gautam vs. State of Bihar, 2002 SAR Cr. J. 380, Hukum Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 7 SCC 490 . See State of Rajasthan vs. Hanuman AIR 2001 SC 282 , Chandra Bihari Gautam vs. State of Bihar, 2002 SAR Cr. J. 380, Hukum Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 7 SCC 490 . It is also claimed that the prosecution has suppressed the natural and independent witnesses of the occurrence and has relied upon the interested witnesses alone. However, as it is, place of occurrence lies at one side of the village, presence of none of the neighbours on spot could be proved by the appellants. Learned Advocate has vehemently argued further that Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 4) has been an independent witness and should have been relief upon by the trial Court. 15. It is true that this Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 4) has admitted presence of wife of Genda Dhobi and two artisans working on stone near the temple. However, presence of these persons on spot has not been admitted either by Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1) or Harendra Singh (P.W. 2). Both of them clearly claim that there were only cattle sheds of the village in the vicinity. None from the village had come on spot. Non examination of these persons does not affect the evidence of witnesses already examined. Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 4) has been declared hostile by the public prosecutor and has been cross-examined wherein he has denied A to A, B to B portions of Ex. P/3, statement recorded by the I. O. He has been vague and hesitant on the point that his step mother's niece is wife of Ram Naresh Singh (A-2). His statement before the police was different from what he stated before the Court. The learned Trial Court has rightly discarded his evidence and held that he has suppressed the truth. From his statement, statements of Vishwanath Singh (P.W.1), Harendra Singh (P.W. 2), Vimlesh (P.W. 3) are not rebutted or rendered untrustworthy. 16. Of course Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1) in Para 3 has admitted that he had been to Harnath Sharma Sarpanch and told him about occurrence. However, Harnath Sharma, Sarpanch has not been examined. Chowkidar of the village has not also been examined. Admittedly, none of them has been an eye-witness and their non-examination is not material. 17. The learned Advocate for appellants has vehemently argued that F.I.R. was delayed and there has been no explanation of delay. However, Harnath Sharma, Sarpanch has not been examined. Chowkidar of the village has not also been examined. Admittedly, none of them has been an eye-witness and their non-examination is not material. 17. The learned Advocate for appellants has vehemently argued that F.I.R. was delayed and there has been no explanation of delay. However, both Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1) and Harendra Singh (P.W. 2) have claimed that it was late in evening. Appellants with their father and two unknown persons were at large with weapons in their hands and because of fear these witnesses could not proceed immediately to P. S. Umari situate about 10 kms. away. According to them Loknath Singh (P.W. 9), S. O. had come at about 9-10 P.M. in night (See para 5 and 16 of Vishwanath Singh, P.W. 1 and para 4 of Harendra Singh, P.W. 2). It was dark on the spot. Hence a lantern had to be called from the village and then Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) was scribed by Loknath Singh (P.W. 9). This was sent to police station Umari by hand through Baburam Awasthy (P.W. 5). Nathuram Parashar (P.W. 6) scribed F. I. R. (Ex. P/4) at 2 a.m. on 23-6-1984 on its basis. Obviously, in these facts neither Dehati Nalishi nor F.I.R. is delayed without reason. Ofcourse, as F. I.R. (Ex. P/4) is just a copy of Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1), it is not a case of two F.I.Rs. or F.I.R. (Ex. P/4) being barred under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ratio of T. T. Antony vs. State of Kerala : (2001) 6 SCC 181 , T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala (Pt. 104-2001(5) Supreme today 132) wherein second F.I.R. was lodged after about 3 years. of the occurrence after completion of judicial enquiry is not applicable in the facts of this case. Even this case is not parallel to Ramlal Narang vs. State Delhi Administration, (1979) 2 SCC 322 . Obviously, the present is not a case of unexplained delay in record of F.I.R. Sheelam Ramesh vs. State of A.P., (1999) 8 SCC 369 has to be kept in mind. In that case, the prosecution witness had rushed to the police station at a distance of 200 ft. and returned with the police. Injured was taken to hospital where he died within 55 minutes. In that case, the prosecution witness had rushed to the police station at a distance of 200 ft. and returned with the police. Injured was taken to hospital where he died within 55 minutes. Five minutes later, prosecution witness returned with police and lodged F.I.R. It is not a case here that either Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1) or Harendra Singh (P.W. 2) had first gone to police station or narrated the occurrence to the police, stayed there for 10-15 minutes or returned to the village with S. O. and Dehati Nalishi was recorded thereafter at the house of deceased as was the case of Kanhai Mishra alias Kanhaiya Misar vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 3 SCC 451 . In Rambabu Singh alias Babu Singh vs. State of M. P. 1984 C. Cr. J. SN 12, incident was not reported immediately to the police. The complainant had taken aid of a political person and had got the report typed-written. In the present case, there has been nothing on record to show that any external assistance was taken by Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1). It is true that Baburam Awasthy (P.W. 5) in para 2 has admitted that Loknath Singh (P.W. 9) and this witness had reached village Pulawali at about 7 p.m. and had come to know that deceased Keshav Singh was murdered. He has admitted that Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1) had reported the matter to Loknath Singh (P.W. 9) at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. Loknath Singh (P.W. 9) continued to investigate and sent him with Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) at about 12 in the night. This statement is at variance with the statements of Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1), Harendra Singh (P.W. 2) and Loknath Singh (P.W. 9). The learned Trial Court has not relied upon this statement of time schedule by Baburam Awasthy (P.W. 5) for good reasons. Thus the claim that Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) is a result of deliberation or consultation has been without substance. Dharam Singh vs. State of Punjab, (XI-1992 (3) Crimes 748) wherein it was found that F.I.R. was a result of consultation or deliberation, is also distinguishable on facts. In that prosecution witnesses had given a parrot like recital of incident, their evidence was modulated to suit the prosecution documents and the medical evidence. Thus, the case is clearly distinguishable. 18. Dharam Singh vs. State of Punjab, (XI-1992 (3) Crimes 748) wherein it was found that F.I.R. was a result of consultation or deliberation, is also distinguishable on facts. In that prosecution witnesses had given a parrot like recital of incident, their evidence was modulated to suit the prosecution documents and the medical evidence. Thus, the case is clearly distinguishable. 18. The learned Advocate of the appellants has relied upon Melaka Jogi vs. The State 1984 (3) Crimes 494 . It was a case of 5 days delay in lodging F.I.R. Death had occurred on 8/4/1979. F.I.R. was lodged on 13-4-1979. In Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 1973 SC 501 , F.I.R. was delayed by 20 hourse. Police Station was at a distance of only 2 miles. In Jam Singh and others vs. State of M. P., 1986 C.Cr.J. (M. P.) 237, dacoity was committed in night at about 9.30 p.m. F.I.R. was lodged next day at about 1.30 p.m. without any explanation for delay. In Ramjag vs. State of U. P., AIR 1974 SC 606 occurrence took place at 4 p.m. Report was lodged at about 12.30 in night, it being a case of appeal against acquittal. A perusal of all these cases clearly shows that facts of present case are widely different. In our opinion there has been no unexplained delay in recording Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) and F.I.R. (Ex. P/4). 19. In Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of Delhi, 2002 (4) SCC 76 , F.I.R. was lodged after the injured was moved to the hospital. Delay of 3 hrs. 50 minutes was held not fatal. this case is nearer to the facts of the present case. 20. On basis of Panda Nana Kare vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 697 , it is argued that Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1), Harendra Singh (P.W. 2) did not proclaim the names of offenders before the crowd which had assembled after murder. However in the facts of the present case, conduct of either Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1) or Harendra Singh (P.W. 2) has not been unnatural, though different persons react differently. They had concealed themselves out of fear. Their own safety was in danger. Vimlesh (P.W. 3) had clearly reported them that two of the appellants had been to their house also and searched for other male members of the family and had fired a gun shot there. They had concealed themselves out of fear. Their own safety was in danger. Vimlesh (P.W. 3) had clearly reported them that two of the appellants had been to their house also and searched for other male members of the family and had fired a gun shot there. Obviously, appellants are the residents of the same village. Obviously, they also have their sympathisers in the village. In these facts, if these two witnesses did not procalim the names of the appellants and late Jagannath Singh before the crowd, the same is neither improbable nor unnatural. As is claimed, names of assialants have been disclosed to the police as soon as Loknath Singh (P.W. 9) had come to the village. 21. It is true that compliance of section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not proved, yet, it merely shows carelessness on the part of investigation and the prosecution. Shivram vs. State of U. P., (1998) 1 SCC 149 . Non compliance in itself is not sufficient to discard the prosecution evidence. Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of Delhi, (2002) 4 SCC 76 . View expressed in Babulal vs. State of M. P., 1985 C. Cr. J. 103, is not absolute and in every case prosecution case is not rendered doubtful merely for non-compliance of section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 22. Obviously, the presence of independent witnesses on spot is not proved and thus the approach of the trial Court has not been one-sided as was in the case of Sheonath and others vs. The State, IV 1988 (1) Crimes 890. Sohan vs. State of Haryana, 2001 (2) Supreme 405 also does not help the appellants. It is not a case in which two sets of prosecution evidence each condemning the other set of evidence was there as was the case in Harchand Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 344 . Appellants have merely denied the prosecution story. However, their active participation in the offence is proved by indefeasible prosecution evidence. 23. The learned Advocate for the appellants has vehemently argued that there has been conflict between ocular evidence and the medical evidence. However, Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1) claims that Ram Naresh Singh (A-2) had fired from a distance of 7 ft. Of course, no charring or scorching was found on person of deceased Keshav Singh. 23. The learned Advocate for the appellants has vehemently argued that there has been conflict between ocular evidence and the medical evidence. However, Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1) claims that Ram Naresh Singh (A-2) had fired from a distance of 7 ft. Of course, no charring or scorching was found on person of deceased Keshav Singh. Situs of pellets found on person of deceased Keshav Singh does not contradict such statement. Merely, because no pellet injury is seen on back or hips of deceased Keshav Singh while it was so claimed by Vishwanath Singh (P.W. 1) in his statement, his statement does not become unreliable. It is claimed that two of the appellants their father late Jagannath Singh and two unknown persons are said to have stabbed the deceased Keshav Singh, yet, there had been only four stab wounds on the person of deceased Keshav Singh. This also does not distracts from case of prosecution. However, minor inconsistency, exaggeration or embarrassments which do not go to the root of the case are of no avail to the appellants. Munshi Prasad vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3031 : 2002 (1) SCC 351 . Sukhdev Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (8) SCC 86 . Obviously, in the facts of the present case, there has been no conflict between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. Such an argument is stated only for discarding the same. 24. Obviously, when six persons armed with fire arm and knives pursued the deceased, one fired a gun shot while others stabbed the deceased causing four stab wounds on vital parts of his body, deceased dying on spot, intention to cause death is apparent. There is clear evidence on record that besides three appellants there father late Jagannath Singh and two unknown persons thus, more than five persons were to murder the deceased. Thus, clearly it is a case of murder and the learned trial Court has not erred in holding all these appellants guilty under section 302/149 of the Code. Obviously Ram Naresh Singh (A-2) was armed with a Katta a fire arm, and other two appellants were armed with knife. All these are dangerous weapons. Thus conviction of appellants under section 148 has also to be maintained. There is no substance in this appeal. The same is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court are hereby confirmed. 25. All these are dangerous weapons. Thus conviction of appellants under section 148 has also to be maintained. There is no substance in this appeal. The same is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court are hereby confirmed. 25. Appellants are on bail. They shall surrender before C.J.M., Bhind within three weeks to serve out the remaining part of their sentence. Period of detention shall be set off in the sentence awarded to them. In case of default, the C. J. M. shall issue non-bailable warrants against them.