Judgment BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. Catastrophes do not come alone. Deceased Manji Singh, who was a teacher in a non-affiliated Sanskrit School, had suffer expulsion from the institution. Appellants and the deceased Manji Singh were agnates and they were separate in mess and business from each other and were residing in houses adjacent to each other. As usually happens, there had been paltry dispute between females of the two families and as a fall out, after the said incident it was alleged that while the deceased was feeding cattle near his house, Uma Shankar Singh appellant of Cr Appeal No. 282 of 1999. hurled abuses on him pursuant to which, Kulwant Singh and Awadh Singh, appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 228 of 1999, having come out, exhorted Uma Shankar Singh to shoot out. As for Uma Shankar Singh, it was alleged that shortly thereafter, he having brought one barrel gun from his house, pumped bullet in the chest of deceased Manji Singh, who dropped on the ground. Though all efforts were made by the family of the deceased for his survival, before he could be admitted at Ara Sadar Hospital, where he was taken by the family members, he was declared dead and with these accusations fardbeyan of Kariman Singh was recorded by Shri S.N. Tiwari, ASI of Ara Town Police Station, following which formal first information report was drawn up at the police station. 2. As usual, investigation commenced in course of which, Police Officer entrusted with the onerous task of investigation, visited place of occurrence, collected inquest report and also the fardbeyan recorded by another Police Officer, recorded statement of witnesses, seized blood stained earth, got autopsy held over the dead body of the deceased by the doctor, and eventually on conclusion of investigation, laid char- gesheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that followed, the State examined altogether five witnesses, who are family members of the deceased. Police Officer and also doctor, who recorded finding about physical feature of the dead body of the deceased and also cause of death. 3. Two-fold defence had been taken on behalf of the appellants at trial. In the eventual trial that followed, the State examined altogether five witnesses, who are family members of the deceased. Police Officer and also doctor, who recorded finding about physical feature of the dead body of the deceased and also cause of death. 3. Two-fold defence had been taken on behalf of the appellants at trial. The first defence was that Kariman Singh had donated land of the deceased to School for consideration and also that since deceased was forcibly cultivating the entire land of widow aunt, Kariman Singh, being hostile to him, had stage managed his killing. However, defence had not chosen to examine any witness on its behalf. The trial Court on appreciation of evidences, placed on record, while negativing plea of innocence, raised on behalf of the appellants, recorded finding of guilt convicting appellants Uma Shankar Singh under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The rest two appellants in view of exhortation made by them, suffered conviction under Section 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and they too were sentenced to same terms of imprisonment by the trial Court. 4. Manifold contentions were raised on behalf of the appellants to assail the propriety of the findings recorded by Court below and it is sought to be urged that though a gruesome killing was attributed to the appellants, motive was conspicuously wanting which might have actuated the appellants to execute killing of the deceased. Yet contentions are raised that first information report which is the sheet anchor of the prosecution case, was not strictly in terms as postulated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that apart, from signature of Kariman Singh on the fardbeyan and also in his deposition, it would appear that they were not identical. Failure of the police to make over a copy of the first information report to the maker was also highlighted at Bar to persuade us to come to conclusion that there has been violation of mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also Police manual and hence there was no assurance that FIR was not a spurious document. Failure of the police to make over a copy of the first information report to the maker was also highlighted at Bar to persuade us to come to conclusion that there has been violation of mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also Police manual and hence there was no assurance that FIR was not a spurious document. There being neither charge nor finding of guilt under Section 27 of the Arms Act, submission is that in view of there being explicit accusation against the assailants for having shot the deceased with fire arms, such omission had vitiated the finding of the trial Court recorded under Section 302, IPC. Submissions were made that since those mentioned in the fardbeyan of Kariman Singh as ocular witnesses were not examined at trial, for that reason, the appellants had been denied the right of fair trial and dilating the submission on this score conversely, it was urged that those who were examined at trial by the State were not suggested to be the eye witnesses in the First Information Report and on this score, too credibility of the prosecution case, it is urged, was open to question. Yet contentions are raised that each witness in his evidence excluded possibility of presence of other witness at the place of occurrence, and that apart, narrations made by them bristles with major contradictions which too makes them unworthy of credence and lastly, it is urged that non-seizure of licensed gun allegedly held by Uma Shankar Singh, by the Investigating Agency had constituted serious infirmity in the prosecution version which would show that investigation was never fair to the appellants. Since a lot of contentions have been raised on behalf of the appellants, before we give our due consideration to them, we consider it proper to delve upon the testimony of witnesses on which the trial Court had placed reliance for recording finding of guilt against the appellants. 5. We may begin our exercise with the testimony of Kariman Singh (PW 3) who happened to be maker of fardbeyan, and as such he also happens to be the person who set the police in motion. 5. We may begin our exercise with the testimony of Kariman Singh (PW 3) who happened to be maker of fardbeyan, and as such he also happens to be the person who set the police in motion. Said Kariman Singh reiterating his earliest version, which he rendered before the police, would state at trial that while deceased Manji Singh was feeding cattle, following a wordy duel between deceased Manji Singh and Uma Shankar Singh alias Tuntun Singh, Awadh Singh and Kulwant Singh having brought weapons with them, exhorted Uma Shankar Singh for shootout. Allegedly thereafter, Uma Shankar Singh having brought a licensed gun pumped bullet in the chest of the deceased who dropped on receipt of injury and after he was brought to Sadar hospital, Ara, he was declared dead. The witness stated that during investigation, since Investigating Agency was not fair to him, he filed a protest petition in Court. Narration almost in similar terms and veins were made also be Indu Devi, wife of the deceased, who happened to be PW 1. and Yogendra Kumar (PW 2). Narrations made by these two witnesses while unfolding genesis of the incident would eloquently suggest that while deceased was feeding cattle on the fateful day of incident near his house, Uma Shankar Singh had hurled abuses on him and when the later had registered protest, shortly thereafter, on exhortation made by Awadh Singh and Kulwant Singh, it was Uma Shankar Singh, the other appellant, who having brought single barrel gun, fired shots on the deceased who dropped instantaneously on receipt of injuries on his person. Narrations made by these two witnesses were quite in conformity and in tune with earliest version of Kariman Singh and also narrations made by him at trial, and hence we do not want to burden our judgrnent with reiterations of narrations made by them at trial. 6. Now we may advert to the findings recorded by Dr. Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh (PW 4) who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and he stated to have noticed multiple pea size lacerated wounds present over right side of chest. Injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Needless to say that the findings recorded by the doctor were in conformity with the mode of assault narrated by the ocular witnesses. 7. Injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Needless to say that the findings recorded by the doctor were in conformity with the mode of assault narrated by the ocular witnesses. 7. We have noticed that before investigation of the case was taken up by Amarendra Narain Kumar (PW 5), fardbeyan or Kariman Singh had already been recorded by Shri S.N. Tiwari, a Police Officer attached to Dhobaha O.P., under Arrah Muffasil police station. The Police Officer who carried out investigation of the case, states at trial that shortly on receipt of information from chowkidar about a shooting out incident in village Hamantpur and injured having been taken to Ara hospital, he rushed to Sadar Hospital, Arrah and collected fardbeyan of Kariman Singh and also inquest report prepared by the other Police Officer. He came to Police Station and left it at about 11 p.m. in the company of chowkidar for visiting the place of occurrence. He noticed place of occurrence to be sahan land in front of the house of Kariman Singh and find that from the place where deceased was shot dead, house of Kariman Singh lies at a distance of 20 ft. and the house of the appellants too situates at a distance of only 10 yards from the place of occurrence. The Police Officer also noticed signs of keeping cattle at the place of occurrence, and seized blood stained earth. 8. In view of ocular testimony of the witnesses, who were none else but the family members of the deceased and also positive finding recorded by the doctor and also objective finding recorded by the Police Officer, factum of death of Manji Singh having died homicidal death having been well established was no longer in dispute and also focal point about the complicity of the assailants has well surfaced in the narrations made by the ocular witnesses. We have noticed that even in the earliest version of the prosecution Uma Shankar Singh had been saddled with the accusation of firing shots on the deceased, being author of killing of Manji Singh. Similar accusations were attributed to rest two appellants about they having exhorted the assailant which too had received ample corroboration from the testimony of ocular witnesses. 9. Now we may notice some of the lucid arguments canvassed on behalf of the appellants. Similar accusations were attributed to rest two appellants about they having exhorted the assailant which too had received ample corroboration from the testimony of ocular witnesses. 9. Now we may notice some of the lucid arguments canvassed on behalf of the appellants. We have noticed the learned counsel for the appellants arguing with all stress that though the Investigating Officer acknowledged to have received first hand information from dhowkidar about the incident, no document was ever placed on the record by the state which basically for all purposes was the first information report and while negativing contention on this score, we may reiterate, which has also been well crystallized in catena of decisions of this Court and also the Apex Court that all vague informations, which are also cryptic in nature and did not contain details either about the incident or assailants, did not assume character of the First Information Report and as a corollary of this, we may state that information first entered in the station diary kept for the purpose by a Police Officer, Incharge of police station is First Information Report as postulated by Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Simply because some sort of information was delivered to the police Station by chowlddar, that did not assume character of the First Information Report. Though we wish that the fardbeyan of Kariman Singh should have been recorded in terms of requirement of the of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also Police Manual and also that a copy thereof should have been given to the maker of the fardbeyan, but for that omission bona fide of the prosecution case and credibility of the witnesses cannot be thrown over board. Such omissions are not of such vital char- acter which persuades us to disbelieve all that has been said on behalf of the State. Contrary to the submissions canvassed at Bar, we have noticed that there has been credible evidence on record to saddle the appellants with the accusation for which they were made answerable at trial. Since the appellants had ample opportunity to take defence in their statement rendered before the Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they had also opportunity to adduce evidence in their defence, there was no good reason to come to the conclusion that the appellants had been denied right of fair trial. Since the appellants had ample opportunity to take defence in their statement rendered before the Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they had also opportunity to adduce evidence in their defence, there was no good reason to come to the conclusion that the appellants had been denied right of fair trial. We are not obvious of the fact that Janardan Singh and Ragupati Singh who were very much cited as ocular witnesses in the First Information Report were not examined at trial and we have also noticed that Indu Devi wife of the deceased and Yogendra Kumar, son of Kariman Singh, who were examined by the State, had not been mentioned in the First Information Report as witnesses, but for that reason alone one cannot come to conclusion that credibility of these witnesses who have been found otherwise reliable by the Court below which we too endorse, should be dismissed. 10. We may reiterate that if material witness, who would unfold genesis of the incidentor essential part of the prosecution case, is not convincingly brought to the fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case, which could have been supported or made good by examining a witness, prosecution case can be termed as suffering a deficiency. But in stasuch a case, Court ought to scrutinize the worth of the evidence adduced. If witnesses already examined, are reliable and statements coming from their mouths are unimpeachable, the Court can safely act upon it, uninfluenced by non-examination of others witnesses and on these premises we dismiss contention raised on behalf of the appellants on this score. True it is that though the Investigating Officer states to have seized blood stained earth from the place of occurrence, there has been no finding of the Chemical Examiner to determine origin of the blood, but for that reason too we are of the view that since these are omissions of petty details, they did not befog the real issue and consequently did not affect the broad features of the prosecution case. Narration made by ocular witnesses was quite coherent and there has been striking resemblance in the narrations made by them and they did not exclude presence of each other on the place of occurrence. The matter can be examined from other angle also to consider reliability of these witnesses. Narration made by ocular witnesses was quite coherent and there has been striking resemblance in the narrations made by them and they did not exclude presence of each other on the place of occurrence. The matter can be examined from other angle also to consider reliability of these witnesses. Kariman Singh (PW 3) apart from he being maker of the fardbeyan also happens to be ocular witness. He happens to be none else but the agnate of the deceased. He resides adjacent to the house where deceased and appellants to resided. Similar logic would apply in the case of Yogendra Kumar (PW 2) and also Indu Devi (PW 1) who happens to be none else but the wife of the deceased. Presence of these witnesses at the place of occurrence was most probable and natural. Though some sort of endeavors were made at Bar for exclusion of Kariman Singh to be the eye-witness of the occurrence and some questions were also put to the Investigating Officer but impression which is gathered from evidence is that only preceding the incident, Kariman Singh was playing card with some persons at a different place, but no such material has been placed on the record on behalf of the appellants which can militate against presence of Kariman Singh and others at the material time of incident. (Emphasis supplied.) 11. We have noticed that the occurrence took place at 5 p.m. on 17.8.1994. The fardbeyan of Kariman Singh (PW 3) was recorded by the Police Officer at about 8.30 p.m. on the same day at Sadar Hospital, Ara. The police station situates at a distance of 13 Kms. from village Hemantpur. The fardbeyan recorded by Shri S.N. Tiwari of Ara Town Police Station was forwarded to Incharge Ara (M) Police Station which had jurisdiction, on the same day. The fardbeyan was drawn up on the same day at 17.8.1994 and the inquest report had been prepared by the Police Officer at 18.45 hours on the same day i.e. 17,8.1994 and taking these facts into consideration, again we come to conclusion that the prosecution was launched with all promptitude shortly after the incident and investigation too had commenced shortly thereafter. Though we have noticed that there has been delay in receipt of the First Information Report by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as it appears from the endorsement made by him on the body of the First Information Report, but since the prosecution was launched without loss of time and investigation commenced shortly thereafter, even if there be delay in receipt of the First Information Report, that did not diminish the probative value of the earliest version of the State. We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that some discordant note had surfaced in the narration made by Kariman Singh (PW 3). Though the Police Officer states to have recorded his further statement at Ara Sadar Hospital, where he happened to meet him, the witness states that so long he was in Ara Sadar Hospital, his further statement was not recorded by the Police Officer. Similarly, at some point of time, the witness states that while the deceased was shot at by Uma Shankar Singh, he was not feeding cattle. But this fact too cannot be lost sight of that when a witness is stating on details after lapse of time, some sort of discrepancy not of vital significance may occur in his evidence, and that apart, it is not the isolated statement of a witness that has to be taken into consideration to Judge his credibility, but totality of statements made, would merit consideration, and that apart, there has been narrations made by other two witnesses too, who have stated that the deceased was feeding cattle at the material time of incident. As has been the statement of witnesses, people of other community too reside in the village, but for that reason too there did not appear to be good reason to disbelieve credibility of these witnesses who were neighbours of the deceased. While going through the evidence of I.O. we have noticed that many questions were put to the Investigating Officer about some statements rendered by other witnesses during investigation, but since they were not examined at trial there was no occasion for the defence to elicit such answer from the Investigating Officer and for the Presiding Officer too it was not permissible for him to permit the defence counsel to venture such exercise at trial. 12. 12. Having given our due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidences placed on the record, while upholding conviction recorded against the appellants and also sentence awarded to them, we too endorse the findings and find that there has not been even little scope for interference. 13. In the result, both the appeals bearing Cr. t. Since Kulwant Singh and Awadh Singh are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and it is directed that trial shall take all coercive steps for their apprehension to consign them to custody to serve out the remainder of sentence. As for Uma Shankar Singh, it seems from the record that he was on ad interim bail, pursuant to which he surrendered in the Court below. Both the appeals accordingly fail. SACHCHIDANAND JHA, J. 14 I agree.