JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar dated 8.9.1998 convicting the appellants Kalu Ram and Amar Singh for the offence under section 302 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code respectively. Both of them have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Appellant Kalu Ram has further been convicted for the offence under section 452 and 326 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment & to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count. For the same offences, appellant Amar Singh has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced similarly. 2. The factual scenario as emerged during the trial is that on 21.6.1997 at about 7.30 AM, a telephonic information from unknown person was received at Police Station, Nohar to the effect that in village Bhadra, murder of Zindu Ram has been committed.The information was entered in the Rojnamcha Register vide Ex.P. 46 by P.W. 10 Ramjas, S.H.O. of the Police Station. The police rushed to the place of incident and found P.W.1 Sahab Ram, son of the deceased Zindu Ram lying in injured edition. P.W. 10 Ramjas recorded his statement vide E.x.P 1. He stated that on 20th June, 1997 at about 9-9.30 PM while he alongwith his deceased father Zindu Ram and mother P.W. 2 Chiriya were sitting in the compound of the house and taking food, appellants Kalu Ram and Amar Singh arrived. Appellant Kalu Ram was carrying "gandasi" in his hand and Amar Singh had a pistol. Amar Singh caught hold of his father Zindu Ram by neck and thrashed him saying "Zindiya to aajkal netagiri jyada karta hai". On his intervention, appellant Kalu Ram from the sharp edged side of "gandasi" inflicted injury on the back side of knee of left leg. On intervention by his mother, P.W 2 Chiriya, appellant Amar Singh threw her on the ground. Zindu Ram was dragged outside the house. In the street, Amar Singh fired pistol at Zindu Ram and Kalu Ram inflicted injuries by "gandasi". Zindu ram succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of `parcha bayan' of P.W. 1 Sahab Ram, the F.I.R. Ex.P. 48 was registered for the offence under section 302, 458, 326 and 323 and 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Arms Act. Zindu ram succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of `parcha bayan' of P.W. 1 Sahab Ram, the F.I.R. Ex.P. 48 was registered for the offence under section 302, 458, 326 and 323 and 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Arms Act. The police prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem. The accused were arrested and the recoveries of incriminating articles were made in pursuance of the information given by them. After usual investigation, police laid chargesheet against both the appellants for the above mentioned offences. The appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution examined ten witnesses and produced certain documents to prove its case. In statement under section 313 CrPC, appellants denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. The trial Court relying on the statements of the eye witnesses P.W. 1 Sahab Ram and P.W. 2 Chiriya corroborated by the medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence found the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner noticed above. 3. Assailing the conviction, it is vehemently argued by Mr. H. S.S. Kharlia learned counsel for the appellants that it was a blind murder and since none of the alleged eye witnesses had actually seen the occurrence, they had roped-in appellants on mere suspicion. Learned counsel has severely criticized the conduct of both P.W. 1 Sahab Ram and P.W. 2 Chiriya being contrary to the ordinary human conduct. It is submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place at about 9-9.30 PM and the dead body of Zindu Ram remained lying unattended for the whole night. Such a conduct was not expected from the wife and son of the deceased. It is suggested that the murder might have taken place somewhere else and both the alleged eye witnesses were not even aware till morning as to the manner of the incident and the names of the actual assailants. Learned counsel has pointed out serious infirmities in the investigation inasmuch as the pellets and wads were not collected from the place of incident. Learned counsel has also raised contention with respect to exact timing of the incident on the basis of the statement of P.W. 5 Dr. J. P. Swamy. Learned counsel has pointed out serious infirmities in the investigation inasmuch as the pellets and wads were not collected from the place of incident. Learned counsel has also raised contention with respect to exact timing of the incident on the basis of the statement of P.W. 5 Dr. J. P. Swamy. On post mortem, he found the semi digested food in the stomach of the deceased. It is also submitted that no explanation has been given for delay in filing the F.I.R. It is also submitted that as far as appellant Amar Singh is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that he shared the common intention in the murder of Zindu Ram with co-accused Kalu Ram. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. 5. We have carefully scrutinised and analyzed the prosecution evidence. 6. P.W. 1 Sahab Ram has deposed that on 20th June, 1997 at about 9-9.30 PM, he alongwith his mother Chiriya and deceased father Zindu Ram were sitting in the compound of the house. His father was washing his hands after taking food. Her mother was serving him the food. At that time, appellants Amar Singh and Kalu Ram arrived. Amar Sing as carrying pistol and Kalu Ram had a "gandasi" in his hand. Amar Singh challenged his father saying that he was indulged in "dadagiri" and caught hold of his neck. He intervened to save his father on which Kalu Ram gave a "gandasi" blow from its sharp edged side causing injury on the back side of his knee on account of which he fell down and there was profuse bleeding from the injury. When his mother rushed to intervene, she was thrown on the ground by Amar Singh. Both the accused persons dragged his father and took him outside in the street. Amar Singh fired pistol, which hit on the back of his father. Thereafter, Kalu Ram gave "gandasi" blows to his father. Hearing the cries of his father, his uncle Budh Ram also arrived. When he tried to reach near his father, both the appellants threatened him of the similar consequences. Out of fear, none of them could protect deceased Zindu Ram. Both the appellants while leaving the spot threatened that if they informed the police, they would face the same consequence. Hearing the cries of his father, his uncle Budh Ram also arrived. When he tried to reach near his father, both the appellants threatened him of the similar consequences. Out of fear, none of them could protect deceased Zindu Ram. Both the appellants while leaving the spot threatened that if they informed the police, they would face the same consequence. He further stated that his father succumbed to the injuries on the spot. He further stated that on account of the injuries sustained by him, he became unconscious. He gained consciousness in the morning when the police had arrived. His statement was recorded by the S.H.O. vide Ex.P. 1. He also stated that their relation with the appellants were inimical because of certain dispute took place five years back. He stated that though the compromise had taken place between the parties, appellants kept enmity with them. In the cross examination, he admitted that Amar Singh fired pistol from a distance of 40ft. He also admitted that it was the appellant Kalu, who alone dragged his father in the street. He however stated that if Amar Singh had missed his shot, his father would have succeeded in fleeing away and saved his life. He also admitted that the appellant Amar Singh did not repeat the fire. He denied the suggestion that his father after taking food had left the house and that he was not aware as to who killed his father during night. He also denied the suggestion that in the night, a quarrel had taken place with his father outside the house. He stated that he could not have gone to the Police Station as it was not possible for him to move because of the injuries sustained by him on the leg. 7. P.W. 2 Chiriya has stated almost on the line of her son P.W. I Sahab Ram. In the cross examination, she admitted that no medical aid was provided to his son during the night. Nobody visited their house after the incident till morning. She also stated that she did not go out to see the dead body of her husband out of fear and further the fact her son was lying unconscious. She further stated that while her husband got himself released from the clutches of appellants and was running, appellant Amar Singh fired at him. Thereafter, Kalu Ram gave repeated "gandasi" blows to him. She further stated that while her husband got himself released from the clutches of appellants and was running, appellant Amar Singh fired at him. Thereafter, Kalu Ram gave repeated "gandasi" blows to him. She denied the suggestion that she was not aware as to who had committed murder of her husband. 8. P.W. 3 Budh Ram is the brother of the deceased. He has stated that hearing cries of his brother Zindu Ram, he rushed to the spot. When he tried to intervene, appellants threatened him of the similar consequence. He further stated that he saw Kalu Ram inflicting injuries by "gandasi" to Zindu Ram. He also stated that in the night at about 1.30, he heard barking of the street dogs. He stated that he had also seen two persons standing in the street. 9. On the basis of the statement of P.W. 3 Budh Ram, learned counsel for the appellants had tried to build-up a case to the effect that the incident had taken place in two parts. The first part of the incident took place at about 9-9.30 PM and second part at 1.30 PM. It is suggested by the learned counsel that at about 9-9.30 PM, deceased left the house after taking dinner and something happened at about 1-30 PM in which Zindu Ram died. Thus, it was a case of blind murder and appellants have been roped-in merely on suspicion. All suggestions in this line have been denied by this witness. 10. Turning to the medical evidence, P.W. 5 Dr. J. P. Swamy has stated that he conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Zindu Ram vide post mortem report Ex.P. 21. He noticed the following injuries on his person : "1. Three pellet injuries on Rt. side of back, just 1" from Rt. L-1 and second 4" above & lat. to the inj. and pellet inj. just below Lt. shoulder blade; 2. One incised wound on the Lt. side of back just below the scapula; 3. One incised wound 5" x 1" x skin muscle & bone deep, straight 3" from nose across the zygomatic mastoid & parietal bone laceration all the muscle and brain matter, cutting Lt. pinna; 4. one incised wound on Rt. frontal region 3" x 1" skin muscle & bone deep; 5. 2 bruises and wound on Lt. axilla; 6. one toothbite mark on Lt. pinna; 4. one incised wound on Rt. frontal region 3" x 1" skin muscle & bone deep; 5. 2 bruises and wound on Lt. axilla; 6. one toothbite mark on Lt. shoulder on the top; 7. one incised wound on the Lt. shoulder 2" below top of shoulder; 8. one wound with bruise on Lt. side of pelvic above the iliac cresh; 9. one incised wound 4" x 1" skin muscle & bone deep on occipital region." 11. In the opinion of the doctor, Zindu Ram died due to laceration of brain matter & fracture of skull bones. All the injuries were reported to be ante mortem in nature. In the cross examination, he admitted that except injury No. 3, all the injuries were simple in nature. He also admitted that there was no depth of the pellet injuries. He also admitted that the pellet injuries were ineffective. He also stated that if the deceased was wearing a shirt, it must have holes made by the pellets. He also stated that he did not know if there were holes in the shirt or not. He further admitted that as the food in the stomach was semi digested, the deceased must have taken it five to six hours prior to the actual time of death. 12. P.W. 6 Dr. Vinod Kumar has stated that he examined the injuries of Sahab Ram and prepared the injury report Ex.P.23. He noticed the following injuries on his person: "1. Abrasion 4 x 1/2 cm Rt. forearm posterior aspect 3" below elbow; 2. Abrasion 5 x 1/4 cm mid of Lt. forearm; 3. Incised wound 10 x 3 x bone deep spindle shaped with exposure of bone piece on Lt. knee jt. posterior aspect." 13. In his opinion, the injuries No. 1 and 2 were simple in nature, while injury No. 3 was grievous caused by sharp edged weapon. 14. P.W. 10 Ramjas, who was then investigating officer, has given the details of investigations. It is also stated that pistol was recovered from Amar Singh vide Ex.P. 47 in pursuance of the information Ex.P. 12 given by the appellant. Similarly, blood stained "gandasi" was recovered from appellant Kalu Ram vide Ex.P. 46 in pursuance of his information vide Ex.P. 15. He has also referred to the link evidence. It is also stated that pistol was recovered from Amar Singh vide Ex.P. 47 in pursuance of the information Ex.P. 12 given by the appellant. Similarly, blood stained "gandasi" was recovered from appellant Kalu Ram vide Ex.P. 46 in pursuance of his information vide Ex.P. 15. He has also referred to the link evidence. The prosecution has also examined the witness to establish the link to the effect that the recovered articles remained intact from the time of recovery till they were delivered to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Since the F.S.L. report was not received, the trial Court has not discussed the evidence of recovery. 15. On careful consideration of the evidence of both the eye witnesses, we are of the view that they arc most natural and truthful witnesses. The suggestion of blind murder cannot be accepted for the reason that P.W. 1 Sahab Ram himself has sustained grievous injuries on his leg, alleged to have been caused by appellant Kalu Ram. His statement in that regard finds corroboration from the medical evidence. The initial incident has taken place in their house and, as, such, they are the most natural witnesses. As regards the dead body of the deceased Zindu Ram lying outside the house unattended for the whole night, which is alleged to be against the normal human conduct, P.W. 1 Sahab Ram and P.W. 2 Chiriya have given the explanation that out of fear, they could not go out of the house. P.W. 1 Sahab Ram stated that he became unconscious having sustained a severe injury on his leg and P.W. 2 Chiriya stated that she was attending her son Sahab Ram. Their explanations appear to be plausible. The Apex Court in (1) Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana reported in 1983 SCC (Cri) 601 has observed that every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. It is further observed that to discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. Thus, the testimony of both the eye witnesses in the instant case on this ground cannot be doubted. 16. Now coming to the contention with regard to semi digested food in the stomach of the deceased. Thus, the testimony of both the eye witnesses in the instant case on this ground cannot be doubted. 16. Now coming to the contention with regard to semi digested food in the stomach of the deceased. The ocular testimony of a witness on spot cannot he discredited simply on the basis of medical evidence. The Apex Court in (2) Sardul Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1994 Cri. L.J. 626 dealing with such contention observed as follows : "Merely because the illiterate witnesses stated that they took their meals immediately before the occurrence cannot by itself be a circumstance to discredit their evidence on the basis of medical evidence regarding the presence of semi-digested food. It is also clear from the text-books on medical jurisprudence that the stomach contents cannot be determined with precision at the time of death. As rightly held by the High Court, the trial Court grossly erred in basing its verdict mainly on the nebulous medical observation. As noted above the trial Court has given undue importance to some insignificant facts and trivial things." 17. It is also submitted that no pellets were recovered by the investigating officer from the place of incident. Another criticism is that there is no corresponding holes in the shirt taken from the body of the deceased. The criticism on both the points is of trivial nature. There may be some lapse on the part of the investigating officer in this regard. In fact Ex.P. 35A shows that the pellet was recovered from the spot. However, it is well established that the accused cannot take advantage of lapses in the investigation. 18. In our view, the statements of the eye witnesses are natural, corroborated by the medical evidence and the learned trial Court has given congest reasons for relying on them. On careful consideration of the entire evidence, we find that their evidence stood to test of cross examination and was rightly accepted by the trial Court. The eye witnesses have supported the prosecution case in all its material particulars.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the instant Appeal and also the J ail Appeal, therefore, they stand dismissed. The appellants are in jail. They will serve out the remaining part of the sentence, awarded.Appeals Dismissed. *******