M. C. JAIN, J. Both these appeals are lodged against judgment and order dated 4-8-1997 passed by Sri C. P. Singh Sisodia, the then X Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in S. T. No. 1008 of 1994. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 1997 are Hamid Pahalwan and Sardar Singh whereas Jitendra alias Chakwa, Pappu, Ajit, Hardam and Raj Kumar are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1472 of 1997. These are the expedited appeals under the orders of Honble the Chief Justice dated 19-4-2002. The appellants Hamid Pahalwan and Sardar Singh have been convicted under Section 120-B I. P. C. read with Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, each has to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. The remaining five appellants have been convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. read with Section 149 I. P. C. with a sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. Each has to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years in default of payment of fine. Each of them has further been convicted under Section 148 I. P. C. and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences of imprisonment have to run concurrently. 2. The criminal conspiracy for the commission of this crime allegedly took place on 15-4-1994 at about 10-11 a. m. in Village Shahkuli, Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut and the actual occurrence took place in the same village on 16-4-1994 at about 2. 30 p. m. in front of the house of Mangala. The F. I. R. was lodged the same day at 4. 15 p. m. by Yashveer Singh PW 1 (not an eye-witness ). Hamid Pahalwan and Sardar Singh were not present at the time of the commission of the crime, whereas remaining five were actual assailants. Jitendra alias Chakwa was allegedly armed with rifle. Pappu, Ajit, Hardam and Raj Kumar had country-made pistols. The deceased was Dharma Pal Singh, father of Yashveer Singh PW 1. There was said to be direct enmity of the complainant and his family with the accused-appellants Jitendra alias Chakwa, Pappu and Ajit. On the fateful day and time Dharma Pal Singh was going from the house of Hardam son of Bhoop Singh to his own house. The deceased was Dharma Pal Singh, father of Yashveer Singh PW 1. There was said to be direct enmity of the complainant and his family with the accused-appellants Jitendra alias Chakwa, Pappu and Ajit. On the fateful day and time Dharma Pal Singh was going from the house of Hardam son of Bhoop Singh to his own house. When he reached in front of the house of Mangala, the appellants Jitendra alias Chakwa, Pappu, Ajit, Hardam son of Charan Singh and Raj Kumar, who were laying in wait, emerged all of a sudden with the weapons as detailed earlier and surrounded Dharma Pal Singh. They opened volley of shots on Dharma Pal Singh who died instantaneously. The incident was witnessed by Sri Chand PW 2, Mohkam Singh PW 3, Maluk and Baran Singh on whose alarm a number of other villagers rushed up and collected at the spot. The appellants made their escape with their weapons, firing and offering threats. The murder was said to have been committed in conspiracy of Hamid Pahalwan and Sardar Singh. The lodging of the F. I. R. resulted in registering the case and the investigation followed which was taken up by S. I. Mahaveer Singh PW 7 and concluded by Rajendra Prasad Yadav PW 8. 3. The post mortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. P. P. Sharma PW 4 on 17- 4-1994 at 2. 00 p. m. The deceased was aged about 52 years and one day had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person: - (1) Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 1. 5 cm x oral cavity deep, left side of face, 4 cm in front of angle of left mandible directing medially margins inverted, blackening in an area of 7 x 5 cm. 16 metallic pellets recovered from the muscle of oral cavity. (2) Gun shot wound of entry 2 x 1. 5 cm x chest cavity deep, left side of chest 5 cm below the medial and left clavicle directing posteriorly. A metallic bullet recovered from post part chest. (3) Gun shot wound of entry 6 x 4 cm x muscle deep front of chest upper part, 1 cm medial to left nipple at 9 Oclock position directing laterally and downward and posteriorly communicating to injury No. 4. A metallic bullet recovered from post part chest. (3) Gun shot wound of entry 6 x 4 cm x muscle deep front of chest upper part, 1 cm medial to left nipple at 9 Oclock position directing laterally and downward and posteriorly communicating to injury No. 4. (4) Gun shot wound of exit 8 x 5 cm x muscle deep on lower left chest, 3 cm below to injury No. 3 outer aspect and communicating to injury No. (3 ). (5) Gun shot wound of entry 4 x 5 cm x chest cavity deep, right lower outer part of chest, 6 cm below right nipple at 7 Oclock position directing posteriorly and medially. 30 metallic pellets and wad recovered from right chest cavity. (6) Gun shot wound of entry 5 x 2 cm x abdominal cavity deep on outer lower abdomen right side 11 cm lateral to nipple at 7 Oclock position. A metallic bullet was recovered from right kidney. (7) Gun shot wound of entry 6 x 3 cm x muscle deep, on lower medial left thigh, 6 cm above left knee and communicating to injury No. (8) directing posteriorly and laterally. (8) Gun shot wound of exit 6 x 4 cm x muscle deep on left popletial region and communicating to injury No. 7. (9) Gun shot wound of entry 3 x 2 cm x muscle deep on left leg outer part, 13 cm below left knee joint, blackening in an area of 7 x 7 cm around the wound and communicating to injury No. (10 ). (10) Gunshot wound of exit 7 x 3 cm on post upper left leg 8 cm below to the injury No. (8) and communicating to injury (9 ). (11) Gun shot wound of entry 1. 5 x 1 cm x muscle deep on base of left index finger on dorsal surface directing medially and communicating to injury No. (12 ). (12) Gun shot wound of exit 2 x 2 cm x muscle deep on the base of outer aspect of right index finger dorsal side and communicating to injury No. (11 ). (13) Abrasion 5 x 4 cm front of mid of right chest. (14) Abrasion 2 x 2 cm lower part of right side chest. (15) Gun shot wound of entry 5 x 3 cm x muscle deep on lower left forearm. Margin inverted. 6 pellets recovered. 4. (13) Abrasion 5 x 4 cm front of mid of right chest. (14) Abrasion 2 x 2 cm lower part of right side chest. (15) Gun shot wound of entry 5 x 3 cm x muscle deep on lower left forearm. Margin inverted. 6 pellets recovered. 4. The death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 52 metallic pellets, one wad piece, two metallic bullets and one metallic pellet cover were recovered from the dead body of the deceased. The defence was of denial. 5. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses. Out of them, Yashveer Singh PW 1 was the informant though not eye-witness. Sri Chand PW 2 and Mohkam Singh PW 3 were examined as eye-witnesses. The rest was the evidence relating to post mortem, investigation and of other formal nature. 6. In Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 1997, we have heard Sri V. M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A. G. A. Sri G. S. Bisaria as also Sri Samit Gopal learned counsel for the complainant. In the other appeal, arguments from the side of the appellants have been advanced by Sri P. N. Mishra, learned senior Advocate. From the side of the State, the arguments of Sri G. S. Bisaria learned A. G. A. and Sri Samit Gopal as counsel for the complainant have been heard. 7. It has first been argued by Sri Mishra that there was no immediate motive on the part of the accused- appellants (who are said to be actual assailants) to commit the murder of Dharma Pal. This argument would not detain us for long. Suffice it to say that motive recedes into insignificance when there is direct and positive eye-witness account. The present is a case of direct eye-witness account. Further, it is not a case where there was no motive on the part of the accused appellants. It has come in the testimony of Yashveer PW 1 (son of the deceased) that earlier to the present incident, Jitendra alias Chakwa, Pappu and Ajit had murdered his sister Rajni by shooting and they were facing trial for the same. His father Dharma Pal was a witness in that case and these appellants were pressing and threatening his father repeatedly not to give evidence against them in that case. His father Dharma Pal was a witness in that case and these appellants were pressing and threatening his father repeatedly not to give evidence against them in that case. The fourth appellant Raj Kumar is the cousin of Jitendra alias Chakwa and Hardam Singh accused-appellant is said to be their associate. In the face of such backdrop, the appellants had sufficient motive to cut short the life of Dharma Pal so that he could not appear as prosecution witness in the case of murder of his daughter Rajni. As stated three of the appellants were facing trial for the murder of Rajni. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the argument that there was no motive on the part of the appellants to commit the murder of Dharma Pal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants then urged that it was not mentioned by Yashveer PW 1 in the F. I. R. that the appellants had repeatedly been pressing and threatening his father not to appear as a witness from the side of the prosecution in the case of the murder of Rajni. It is pertinent to state that F. I. R. is not an encyclopedia of every minute detail. The factum of enmity was mentioned in the F. I. R. The F. I. R. was lodged by none else than own son of the deceased only 1. 45 hours after the incident. His mental state at that time can very well be visualized. In an emotion ridden situation, he could not be expected to include each and every minute detail in the F. I. R. of enmity with the accused-appellants. 9. Sri Mishra then contended that the language of the F. I. R. indicates as if it was the outcome of consultation. To support his argument, he laid stress on this sentence used in the F. I. R. , main Chhip Kar Suchana Ko Aaya Hun. Sri Mishra reasoned that the use of these words indicated as if the F. I. R. was written at the police station after consultation. As a matter of fact, the argument that the F. I. R. was written after consultation at the police station runs counter to the earlier argument that it did not contain the factum of the deceased having been pressed and threatened by the appellants earlier not to give evidence in the murder case of Rajni. As a matter of fact, the argument that the F. I. R. was written after consultation at the police station runs counter to the earlier argument that it did not contain the factum of the deceased having been pressed and threatened by the appellants earlier not to give evidence in the murder case of Rajni. Had the report been lodged after consultation or deliberation, such facts would have been there. Absence of these details in the F. I. R. rather speaks of its genuineness and spontaneity. Any way, there is emphatic statement of the informant Yashveer PW 1 (not eye- witness) that he had got the report scribed by Pawan in the village itself which he took to the police station and lodged there. We note from the G. D. relating to the registering of the case that scribe Pawan had not even accompanied the informant to the police station. The singular sentence stressed by the learned counsel for the appellants in the F. I. R. does not and cannot lead to the inference that it was written at the Police Station after consultation. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants then urged that Pawan scribe is none else but the son of Shri Chand PW 2 and Shri Chand is the maternal uncle of the deceased. We do not see that anything can be presumed against that prosecution if the F. I. R. was got written by a close relation Pawan son of Sri Chand PW 2. Anybody can be the scribe of the F. I. R. What is stated in the F. I. R. is not substantial piece of evidence. A person whose father has been murdered would naturally bank upon one of his sympathizers or relations in the steps that he has to take to activate the machinery of law. We, therefore, find that F. I. R. cannot be deemed to be tainted on the ground that it was written by a near relation of the deceased and the informant. 11. Sri Mishra then levelled blistering attack on the eye- witnesses Sri Chand PW 2 and Mohkam Singh PW 3. It has been urged that Muluk, Baran Singh and Karan Singh were other eye-witnesses named in the F. I. R. who had not been examined. 11. Sri Mishra then levelled blistering attack on the eye- witnesses Sri Chand PW 2 and Mohkam Singh PW 3. It has been urged that Muluk, Baran Singh and Karan Singh were other eye-witnesses named in the F. I. R. who had not been examined. As for Sri Chand PW 2, it has been pointed out that he admitted that he had two sons Jai Prakash and Pawan, both of whom were facing trial for the murder of the uncle of the present appellant Jitendra. He also admitted that Deo Raj and Surendra were facing trial for assaulting his son Krishna Deo and in that case deceased Dharma Pal was a prosecution witness and that case was pending at the time of present incident. The submission is that Sri Chand was bracketed with the deceased in being inimically disposed against the accused-appellant Jitendra. Further, his and Dharma Pals family were on such terms as obliging each other in supporting criminal cases. That is said to be reason for Sri Chand PW 2 having come up to support the prosecution in this case. The argument against Mohkam Singh PW 3 is that he admitted that the chak of the accused appellant Jitendra was adjacent to his chak. The witness further admitted that his door was opening on the ridge of the chak of Jitendra. The suggestion was made to this witness that over that score, there had been frequent quarrels between him and Jitendra. The witness, however, denied the factum of any quarrels over the question of door. 12. It is the cardinal principle of law that evidence in not to be counted but it is to be weighed. It is also common knowledge that in faction ridden rural society, wholly independent witnesses are seldom forthcoming for the fear of incurring trouble or enmity for themselves in future. So far as the present two witnesses are concerned, the defence could not indicate anything that Mohkam Singh PW 3 was either thick with the prosecution side or inimical to the accused-appellants. True, with the background related above, Sri Chand PW 2 could be deemed to be a partisan witness, but there is no rule of law that the testimony of partisan witness is to be thrown overboard. The only requirement is that it shall be judged with caution. True, with the background related above, Sri Chand PW 2 could be deemed to be a partisan witness, but there is no rule of law that the testimony of partisan witness is to be thrown overboard. The only requirement is that it shall be judged with caution. In the present case, both these eye-witnesses belong to the same village Shahkulipur where the incident occurred. The five assailants are also residents of the same village. The incident took place in broad daylight. Both of them gave plausible explanation for their presence at the spot. Sri Chand PW 2 had gone to the house of Mohkam Singh PW3. Karan Singh, Baran Singh and Maluk Singh had also assembled there. The purpose was that process of negotiations of marriage of one Dewan Singhs daughter with the son of Dharmabeer was to be started. Dewan Singh was the relation of Sri Chand. The deceased Dharma Pal had also reached there from his field. The deceased was on cordial and visiting terms with Mohkam Singh and his brother Hardam Singh. The deceased left Mokham Singhs place after sitting for about 5-10 minutes as he had to reach his house. Sri Chand PW2 with Mohkam Singh also left immediately thereafter for reaching Dharmabeers house for the negotiations. Dharma Pal had reached in front of the house of Mangala when the five assailants emerged from behind the heap of cow-dung cakes (Bhitaura), surrounded him and opened volley of shots, as a result of which he died at the spot. The witnesses were at a short distance behind Dharma Pal and they could very well witness the incident of shooting. In the site plan, the place where the dead body of the deceased was found is depicted by letter a and that of witnessing of the incident by the witnesses is depicted by letter b the distance between two being about 25 yards with no hindrance in between. 13. Sri Mishra argued that Dharmaveer with whom the negotiations were to be held was admittedly a driver in Roadways and it was not ensured in advance as to whether he was available at his house at that time. He thus urged that the reason assigned by the two witnesses for being present at the spot viz. , for proceeding to the house of Dharmaveer was not plausible and convincing. He thus urged that the reason assigned by the two witnesses for being present at the spot viz. , for proceeding to the house of Dharmaveer was not plausible and convincing. It is to be pointed out that Sri Chand PW 2 also stated that at times Dharmaveer used to return to his house in day time after his duty. Needless to say, Roadways drivers do not perform duty on every day at uniform fixed hours. Their duty is rotated at different hours. Moreover, the witnesses did not belong to the elite society where such negotiations are held with prior appointment. Rustic villagers like Sri Chand PW 2 and Mokham Singh PW 3 were not short of time either. Time is not the essence of life of the villagers generally. There is nothing unusual that these two witnesses, without any prior appointment with Dharmaver, proceeded to his house to have negotiations for the marriage of his son with the daughter of Dewan Singh, a relation of Sri Chand PW 2. The reason assigned by the two witnesses for the presence at the spot is perfectly believable, not suffering from any improbability at the reasoning suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants. 14. Sri Mishra then argued for the actual assailants/appellants that though as per the prosecution the incident occurred on 16-4- 1994, but the statement of the two-witnesses Sri Chand PW2 and Mohkam Singh PW3 were recorded by the Investigating Officer after four days on 20-4-1994 as stated by him while deposing as PW 8. We do not agree that this factor makes any dent in the prosecution case or is otherwise sufficient to dislodge the testimony of these two eye-witnesses. It is clear from the own testimony of the Investigating Officer that between intervening period he had been searching the accused persons and that dead body of Dharma Pal (deceased) had come on 17-4-1994 whereafter these witnesses remained busy in cremation and post death rituals. It has to be borne in mind that these two witnesses were named in the F. I. R. lodged by the son of the deceased and recording of their statements after four days of the incident does not make any difference to the betterment of the accused- appellants. The witnesses gave vivid details of the occurrence and withstood the test of the cross-examination firmly. The witnesses gave vivid details of the occurrence and withstood the test of the cross-examination firmly. The central core of their testimonial assertions remained intact that they were present at the spot and witnessed the incident. It has been observed by the apex Court in the case of Ranvir and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 140, that question of delay in examining the witnesses during the investigation is material only if it is indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice by the investigating agency for the purpose of introducing a got up witness to falsely support the prosecution case. Again in the case of Ganesh Bhawan Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra, 1979 (16) ACC II (SC), the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court observed that delay in questioning a witness by itself cannot amount to any serious infirmity in the prosecution case, but it may assume such a character as if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye- witnesses to be introduced. No such factor, material or circumstance exists in the present case. Therefore, the recording of the statements of the two witnesses by the Investigating Officer after four days is inconsequential. 15. Another argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there is conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence. Our attention has been drawn to the statement of Dr. P. P. Sharma, PW 4 who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he stated that there was blackening around gun shot wound of entry (ante-mortem injury No. 1) and gun shot wound of entry (ante-mortem injury No. 9) and that they could have been caused from within a distance of six feet and further that the rest of the injuries had been caused from more than a distance of six feet. We have been taken through the statement of Sri Chand PW 2 that the shots had been fired by the assailants from a distance of two paces from the deceased. He stated that in all 10-12 shots had been fired by the assailants. The argument has been developed that there being no blackening around the gun shot wounds of entry other than injury Nos. He stated that in all 10-12 shots had been fired by the assailants. The argument has been developed that there being no blackening around the gun shot wounds of entry other than injury Nos. 1 and 9, the ocular account is falsified that the shots had been fired from a distance of about 2 paces, one pace being equal to roughly 2-1/2 feet. It should be observed in this regard that the assailants were as many as five in number, all of whom were armed with the fire-arms and had surrounded the victim. Indeed, they would not have remained static or stationary at the time of raining shots on the deceased with each other also being at equal distance from him. The distance of fire spoken by Sri Chand PW 2, who is a rustic villager, cannot be interpreted with mathematical accuracy. There being five assailants, one armed with rifle and other four with country made pistols, having surrounded the victim, it was natural that some shots were fired from within a distance of six feet and others from a greater distance. When the witnesses are rustics, their behavioral pattern and perceptive habits have to be judged as such. While examining the evidence of such witnesses we have to inform ourselves that variances on the fringes and discrepancies in narration of details cannot militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony when there is the impress of the truth and conformity to the probability in the substantial fabric of the testimony delivered. It would be too rigid and artificial to interpret the statement of Sri Chand PW 2 as regards the distance of shooting in a pedantic manner as if he had measured the distance with the help of measuring tape. We are of the view that far from being contradictory, the medical evidence is in complete harmony with the medical evidence. The deceased in all sustained 9 gun shot wound of entry, four of exits and two abrasions. The five assailants having opened 10-12 shots, the deceased sustained the above number of gun shot wounds of entry. Some shots might have missed. Abrasions could have been sustained by fall of the victim. The use of the rifle is also apparent, because from the dead body of the deceased besides 52 metallic pellets, two metallic bullets and one metallic bullet cover were recovered. Some shots might have missed. Abrasions could have been sustained by fall of the victim. The use of the rifle is also apparent, because from the dead body of the deceased besides 52 metallic pellets, two metallic bullets and one metallic bullet cover were recovered. The recovery of bullets indicate the use of rifle. Four assailants had used country made pistols which well reconcile with the recovery of 52 pellets from the dead body of the deceased. We, therefore, reject the argument that there is any conflict between the medical and ocular evidence. 16. Having examined all the arguments of Sri Mishra, we do not find any merit in any of them. It is established to the hilt that the actual assailants were Jitendra alias Chakwa, Pappu, Ajit, Hardam and Raj Kumar, who having formed unlawful assembly, committed the murder of unarmed Dharma Pal by shooting in broad day light in prosecution of the common object of that assembly. They have rightly been convicted and sentenced. The Criminal Appeal No. 1472 of 1997 is liable to be dismissed. 17. Sri V. M. Zaidi arguing Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 1997 for Hamid Pahalwan and Sardar Singh submitted that the evidence of criminal conspiracy against them is too weak to be believed. It has to be recalled that it is in the testimony of Sri Chand and Mohkam Singh PW 3 that on a day earlier to the present incident, they, while passing by the side of the house of Sardar Singh, had seen him and Hamid Pahalwan sitting and heard them conversing and planning the murder of Dharma Pal. The door of the house of Sardar Singh was ajar. They had allegedly passed on this information even to Dharma Pal and Yashveer PW 1 the same day. It may be pointed out that Hamid Pahalwan is not even the resident of that village. It has not been shown that he had any direct enmity either with Dharma Pal or any of his family members. Sardar Singh is the real brother of the accused appellant Hardam. It has also not been shown that either he had any direct enmity with the deceased Dharma Pal or his family members. None of them was present at the time of incident. Sardar Singh is the real brother of the accused appellant Hardam. It has also not been shown that either he had any direct enmity with the deceased Dharma Pal or his family members. None of them was present at the time of incident. We find force in the argument of Sri Zaidi that the evidence of criminal conspiracy adduced by the prosecution is too weak and tenuous. It does not appeal to logic that they would talk about their secret at such high pitch of voice as to be heard by passers-by outside in the lane. 18. The experience shows that there is tendency on the part of the witnesses to exaggerate the guilt of the opposite party. At times, only when some members of the rival group are involved in the offence, quite often one finds the tendency also to falsely implicate some other persons who are believed or supposed to be thick or belonging to the adversary party. The maxim. falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, is not applicable in our country. In each case, the Court has to appraise the evidence as to what extent it is worthy of acceptance. Merely because the Court considers it to be insufficient to rely on part of the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of rule that it must be rejected in all respects. The Court has to sift the evidence with care and on full consideration of relevant material circumstances to come to a decision as to which part of the testimony of the witnesses is to be accepted and which is to be rejected. On a global consideration, in the present case, we do not find it safe to rely on the testimony of Sri Chand PW 2 and Mokham Singh PW 3 as to the criminal conspiracy part of the accused-appellants Hamid Pahalwan and Sardar Singh. We would, therefore, allow their appeal. In the net result, we finally order as under : Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 1997 is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellants Hamid Pahalwan and Sardar Singh is set aside and they are acquitted. They are already on bail. The connected Criminal Appeal No. 1472 of 1997 is dismissed. In the net result, we finally order as under : Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 1997 is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellants Hamid Pahalwan and Sardar Singh is set aside and they are acquitted. They are already on bail. The connected Criminal Appeal No. 1472 of 1997 is dismissed. The conviction and sentences passed against the accused- appellants, (1) Jitendra alias Chakwa, (2) Pappu, (3) Ajit, (4) Hardam son of Charan Singh and (5) Raj Kumar are affirmed. They are on bail. They shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentences passed against them by the learned trial Judge as stated in the earlier part of the appellate order. Let a copy of this order along with record of the case be immediately sent to the Court below for needful compliance under intimation to this Court within two months from the date of receipt. Decided accordingly. .