K. K. MISRA, J. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 30-7-1981 passed by N. K. Maheshwari, the then IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 445 of 1980, State v. Goverdhan Prasad and others. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court has convicted all the eight accused appellants under Sections 302/149 I. P. C awarding sentence of life imprisonment there-under. Accused Ram Prasad s/o Chheda, Ganga Prasud, Ram Swarup and Ram Prasad son of Ram Swarup were further convicted under Section 147 I. P. C. and sentenced to one year R. I. Accused Goverdhun Prasad, Ram Sajiwan, Sidh Raj and Behari alias Mahabir were also convicted under Section 148 I. P. C and sentenced to two years R. I. , However, all the sentences awarded to the accused appellants were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 26-9-1979 in the morning, the complainant Ganesh Shankar, P. W. 1 and his father Binda Prasad alongwith Kunwar Prasad and Jhoori, son of Deeoni Faqir and Raj Bali Garariya went to the grove of Munnilal to get the wood of the mungo tree cut. Jhoori,faqir and Raj Bali Garariya are residents of village Kulika-Ka-Purwa. Kunwar Prasad is resident of Mahadeopur. Binda Prasad, Jhoori and Raj Bali had axes with them. After reaching the grove of Munnilal, the work of cutting the wood was started. After about one hour and 45 minutes at about 9. 00 a. m. , the complainant and others heard the call of "bachao, Bachao. " They saw that Ram Kumar alias Vibhuti was giving this call from the south and was rushing towards the grove. The accused persons Goverdhan Prasad and Ram Sajiwan, both armed with guns, Ram Prasad son of Chheda, Ganga Prasad, Ram Prasad son of Ram Swaroop and Ruin Swarup armed with Lathis and Sidhh Raj and Behari armed with Pharsas were chasing him. On hearing the cries of Ram Kumar, Virendra Kumar and Jwala Prasad had already reached the grove from their fields. Complainants father also ran to save Ram Kumar, saying khabardar. He had an axe in his hand. When Ram Kumar reached near the Banyan tree in the grove of Munnilal, Govardhan Prasad fired a shot at him from a distance of about 15-16 paces which hit him and he fell down. Complainants father also ran to save Ram Kumar, saying khabardar. He had an axe in his hand. When Ram Kumar reached near the Banyan tree in the grove of Munnilal, Govardhan Prasad fired a shot at him from a distance of about 15-16 paces which hit him and he fell down. Just then the remaining accused started assaulting Ram Kumar with their Pharsas und Lathis. Just then, Ram Sajivan fired at Binda Prasad from a distance of 25 or 30 paces, saying lo tum Bhi Lo The fire missed him but he fell down out of shock. As soon as Binda Prasad fell down, accused Ram Swaroop dealt a Lathi blow to him and accused Sindhraj and Behari started giving Pharsa blows to him. When the complainant and other witnesses advanced ahead to save him, accused Goverdhan Prasad and Ram Sajivan pointed their guns towards them and held out that they would also be shot if they proceeded further. Hence due to fear, the complainant and others did not proceed forward and retreated, raising alarm. 3. Ram Kumar and Binda Prasad died at the spot where they had fallen. Some of the accused dragged the dead body of Binda Prasad upto two-three paces and then lifting it took to the grove of Jailal Tewari and dropped it a little away from the Mahua tree. The remaining accused dragged the dead body of Ram Kumar upto two or three paces and then lifted it and took-to the grove of Vishnu Datt and dropped it in between two Mahua trees. 4. When the occurrence is going on, the residents of village Mahadeopur, Kalkan-Ka-Purwa and Obipur rushed towards the spot on hearing the alarm raised by the witnesses. In the meantime, Behari accused severed the head of Ram Kumar from the neck by cutting it with the Pharsa and axe which Binda Prasad deceased had taken with him. Accused Ram Prasad son of Chheda picked up the head of Ram Kumar and then all the accused went away towards the north, i. e. towards the river Ganga. Due lo fear, the witnesses could not chase the accused persons. 5. The complainant left the witnesses near the dead bodies and came lo his village. He wrote down the report of this occurrence at his house und went to P. S. Husainganj on cycle. He reached there at 10. Due lo fear, the witnesses could not chase the accused persons. 5. The complainant left the witnesses near the dead bodies and came lo his village. He wrote down the report of this occurrence at his house und went to P. S. Husainganj on cycle. He reached there at 10. 30 a. m. and lodged the report with the Head Moharrir. The case was registered under Section 147, 148, 302/149 and 201 I. P. C. 6. The Station Officer, P. S. Hussain ganj, Shri Devi Dayal Dikshit, P. W. 8 took up the investigation of this case. The Station Officer recorded the statement of the complainant Ganesh Shankar at the police station. Then he proceeded to the spot alongwith S. I. Shri Nath Pathak and other constables. There he conducted inquest on the dead bodies of Ram Kumur alias Vibhuti and Binda Prasad alias Jhallu and prepared inquest reports. He sealed two dead bodies in two sheets of cloth separately and entrusted them to constables Kailesh Nath, Ali Hussain and Vishwanath. He sent these two dead bodies for post- mortem examination alongwith necessary papers. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan. He also took samples of blood stained and simple earth from the place of occurrence. He also recovered two empty cartridges from the scene of occurrence. 7. P. W. 3, Dr. G. S. Gaur conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Ram Kumar on 27-9-79 at 2. 50 p. m. . He was aged about 30 years and about 1-1/4 day had passed since he died. The following ante mortem injuries were found on his person: 1. Incised wound 5" X 4" X bone deep. The whole head and the part of neck above the level of 6th cervical vertebra were absent from the body. Margins were clean cut and everted. 2. One gun shot wound of entry 1" X 1 1/2" X chest cavity deep on left side of chest-4-1/2" above the left nipple at 11 Oclock position. Margins were everted. No blackening and tattooing was present. 3. Four gun shot wounds of exit 1/4" X 1/4" X chest cavity deep in an area of 3 1/2" X 3 1/2" on the left side of back on upper 1/3rd part. Margins were everted. No blackening and tattooing was present. 4. Margins were everted. No blackening and tattooing was present. 3. Four gun shot wounds of exit 1/4" X 1/4" X chest cavity deep in an area of 3 1/2" X 3 1/2" on the left side of back on upper 1/3rd part. Margins were everted. No blackening and tattooing was present. 4. Incised wound 4 1/2" X 1/4" X muscle deep, obliquely placed on right side of back (On middle 1/3rd part of back) extending towards left side of back. Margins were clean cut & everted. 5. Incised wound 1-1/2" X 1/4" X muscle deep obliquely on anterior surface of left shoulder joint. Margins were clean cut & everted. 8. The doctor opined that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage resulting from the ante mortem injuries. Three big pellets and one wadding piece were recovered from the body after thorough and extensive search. 9. P. W. 3 Dr. G. S. Gaur also conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Binda Prasad on 27-9-79 at 4. p. m. He was aged about 55 years and about 1-1/4 day had passed since he died. The following ante mortem injuries were found on his person: 1. Incised wound 1" X 1/4" X bone deep on the mid-line of head, 6" above left ear. Margins were everted and clean cut. 2. Incised wound 3 " X 1/4" X muscle deep obliquely on Rt. Side of head 4 " above Rt. Ear. Margins were clean cut and everted. 3. Incised wound 1/4 " X 1/8 " X muscle deep, 1" lateral to injury No. 2. Margins were clean cut and everted. 4. Incised wound 1" X 1/4" X muscle deep on right side of head, 1" behind right ear. Margins were clean cut and everted. 5. Incised wound 1-1/2 " X 1/2" X muscle deep on right side of head 1/2" below injury No. 4. Margins were clean cut and everted. 6. Incised wound 1/4" X 1/8" X muscle deep, 1" below right ear. 7. Incised wound 1/4" X 1/8" X muscle deep 1/4" below injury No. 6. Margins were clean cut and everted. 8. Contusion 6" X2" on left side of upper 1/2 part of chest. 9. Incised would 1/2" X 1/4" X muscle deep on anterior surface of Rt. shoulder joint. Margins were clean cut and everted. 10. 7. Incised wound 1/4" X 1/8" X muscle deep 1/4" below injury No. 6. Margins were clean cut and everted. 8. Contusion 6" X2" on left side of upper 1/2 part of chest. 9. Incised would 1/2" X 1/4" X muscle deep on anterior surface of Rt. shoulder joint. Margins were clean cut and everted. 10. The doctor was of the opinion that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. 11. The accused appellants denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be tried. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C, they stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case. 12. In order to prove its case against the accused appellants, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses in all. Out of them P. W. 1 Ganesh Shankar Misra son of deceased Binda Prasad, P. W. 2 Jhoori and P. W. 4 Kunwar Prasad are the eye-witnesses. P. W. 5 Munni Lal is the person who had sold the tree to Binda Prasad deceased and the remaining witnesses are of formal nature. 13. P. W. 1 Ganesh Shankar Misra is the son of deceased Binda Prasad. He was employed as constable. He had come home on 25-9-79 after taking three days casual leave. The deceased Ram Kumar was his Khandani uncle. The accused were well known to him from childhood. He admitted that before the present incident, there was no enmity between his father and the accused persons. About two months before the present incident, Binda Deen brother of accused Governdhan was murdered and the accused had lodged report against five Gareriyas (shepherds ). One of the accused in that case had taken the field of deceased Ram Kumar alias Bhabhuti on Batai and he had good relations with the accused persons of that case. On 26-9-79, he alongwith his father deceased Binda Prasad, Kunwar Prasad, Jhodri and Raj Bali went to the grove to cut the wood of the tree. He further deposed that his father, Jhoori and Raj Bali had axes with them. On 26-9-79, he alongwith his father deceased Binda Prasad, Kunwar Prasad, Jhodri and Raj Bali went to the grove to cut the wood of the tree. He further deposed that his father, Jhoori and Raj Bali had axes with them. He deposed that at about 9 a. m. they all heard the noise of bachao Bachao and saw that the deceased Ram Kumar of his village was running towards the grove so crying and accused Goverdhan Prasad and Ram Sajivan armed with guns, accused Sindh Raj and Behari armed with Pharsas and remaining accused armed with Lathis were chasing him. When Ram Kumar deceased reached near Banyan tree in the grove of Munni Lal, the accused Goverdhan fired from his gun upon him from a distance of 15-16 steps. Sustaining fire-arm injury, Ram Kumar fell down on the ground. Then remaining accused persons assaulted the deceased Ram Kumar with Pharsas and Lathis. Hearing the cries of the deceased, Jwala Prasad and Virendra Pandey had reached the grove from their fields. Seeing Ram Kumar being assaulted, the deceased Binda Prasad also advanced to save him, raising shouts. Upon this, Ram Sajivan accused fired upon Binda Prasad from a distance of 25-30 steps. Although the shot did not hit him, but he fell down out of panic. Then accused Ram Swaroop gave a Lathi blow to deceased Binda Prasad and accused Sindh Raj and Behari assaulted him with Pharsas. When he and other witnesses proceeded further to resist the assault, the accused Goverdhan Prasad and Ram Sajivan threatened them, pointing the guns towards them that if they proceeded further, they would also be killed. Upon this, this witness and others retreated. Some of the accused dragged the dead body of Binda Prasad to a distance of 2-3 steps and thereafter picking the dead body they left the same at some distance from Mahua tree in the grove of Jai Lal Tiwari. Some of the accused dragged the dead body of deceased Ram Kumar 2-3 steps and picking it left in the grove of Vishnu Datt between two Mahua trees. Hearing their cries, some other persons also came there. Some of the accused dragged the dead body of deceased Ram Kumar 2-3 steps and picking it left in the grove of Vishnu Datt between two Mahua trees. Hearing their cries, some other persons also came there. In the meantime, the accused Behari gave a Pharsa blow on the neck of deceased Ram Kumar and when it was not cut, the accused Ram Sajivan brought axe from near the dead body of his father Binda Prasad and gave a blow and the. neck was cut and separated from the body. Then accused Ram Prasad picked up his head and all the accused fled towards northwest side. Leaving the dead bodies in the custody of witnesses, he came to his house, wrote the report Ex. Ka. 1 and lodged the same at P. S. Hussainganj at 10. 30 a. m. 14. According to P. W. 2 Jhoori, it was about 9. 00 in the morning and he was present in the grove of Munni Lal where the incident took place. The deceased Binda Prasad had taken him there for cutting the wood of mango tree. He was accompanied by Raj Bali, Kunwar Prasad, deceased Binda Prasad and Ganesh Shankar Misra. He further deposed that they all reached there at 7. 00 a. m. After reaching there, Raj Bali and Binda Prasad started cutting the wood of mango tree. At about 9. 00 a. m. when they were cutting the wood, he heard a call of bachao Bachao coming from the southern side. When he looked that side, he found that Vibhuti was rushing towards the grove. He was being chased by master Goverdhan Prasad, Ram Sajivan, Behari, Ram Prasad (resident of village Naya Purwa), Ganga Prasad, Ram Prasad (resident of village Lakhpura), Ram Swaroop and Sindhraj. Two of the accused were armed with guns, two others were armed with Pharsas and remaining 4 accused were armed with Lathis. He further elaborated that the accused Goverdhan Prasad and Ram Sajivan had guns, Behari and Sindhraj were armed with Pharsas and remaining four accused were armed with Lathis. Hearing the alarm raised by Vibhuti (Ram Kumar) deceased, Chookku son of Bishnu Datt and Jwala Prasad son of Ram Lakhan also came there. When Vibhuti reached near the Banyan tree in the grove of Munnilal, accused Goverdhan fired at him. Vibhuti sustained injury and fell down. The accused assaulted him with Pharsas and Lathis. Hearing the alarm raised by Vibhuti (Ram Kumar) deceased, Chookku son of Bishnu Datt and Jwala Prasad son of Ram Lakhan also came there. When Vibhuti reached near the Banyan tree in the grove of Munnilal, accused Goverdhan fired at him. Vibhuti sustained injury and fell down. The accused assaulted him with Pharsas and Lathis. Binda Prasad, taking axe, ran to save Vibhuti. Then accused Ram Saajivan issued a command to get away and opened shot on Binda Prasad. Binda Prasad fell down. When Binda Prasad fell down, the accused Behari, Sidhh Raj and Ram Prasad (resident of Lakhpura) assaulted him with Pharsas and Lathis. The accused dragged the dead bodies of the two deceased and kept the dead body of Binda Prasad in the grove of Jailal Tewari near tree of Mahua und that of Ram Kumar in the grove of Vishnu Datt under Mahua tree. In the grove of Vishunu Dutt, Behari cut the neck of deceased Ram Kumar with Pharsa and Kulhari and Ram Prasad (resident of Lakhpura) took away the head of Ram Kumar. Other accused also followed the said Ram Prasad. 15. P. W. 4 Kunwar Prasad deposed in his evidence that he went to the grove of Munni Lal alongwith Binda Prasad for cutting the wood of mango tree. He was accompanied by Jhoori, Raj Bali and Ganesh Shankar Mirra. Raj Bali and Binda Prasad had axes with them for cutting the wood of mango tree. They reached in the grove at 7. 00 a. m. They cut the wood for about 1-11/2 hours. Then there was an alarm of bachao, Bachao on south west side. He looked that side and found that Vibhuti raising the noise of bachao Bachao was rushing towards them. Hearing the noise, Jwala and Virendra came near him in the grove. The accused were chasing Ram Kumar. Accused Goverdhan Prasad and Ram Sajivan had guns with them. Behari and Sindhraj had Pharsas with them and remaining four accused had Lathis. When Ram Kumar reached near Banyan tree in the grove and looked back, accused Goverdhan Prasad fired at him. Ram Kumar fell down after sustaining the injury. After falling down of the deceased, accused armed with Pharsas and Lathis assaulted him. At that time, Binda Prasad deceased, taking his Kulahri, proceeded towards Ram Kumar to save him. When Ram Kumar reached near Banyan tree in the grove and looked back, accused Goverdhan Prasad fired at him. Ram Kumar fell down after sustaining the injury. After falling down of the deceased, accused armed with Pharsas and Lathis assaulted him. At that time, Binda Prasad deceased, taking his Kulahri, proceeded towards Ram Kumar to save him. Accused Ram Sajivan then commanded him not to come in between, otherwise he would also be killed. Saying this, the accused Ram Sajivan fired at Binda Prasad. Binda Prasad fell down. Then the accused Ram Swaroop assaulted him with Lathi and accused Behari and Sindhraj assaulted him with Pharsas. Binda Prasad and Ram Kumar died at the spot. The accused dragged the dead bodies of the deceased. They kept the dead body of Binda Prasad in the grove of Jai Lal Tewari and kept the dead body of Ram Kumar in the grove of Vishnu Datt. When the accused were taking away the dead body of Binda Prasad and Ram Kumar, the villagers had come there and started crying. Accused Behari cut the neck of Ram Kumar in the grove of Vishnu Datt with Kulhari. Accused Ram Prasad took away the neck of the deceased Ram Kumar in his hand and all accused also went towards northwest side. 16. P. W. 5 Munni Lal has given evidence of the fact that he had sold the mango tree to deceased Binda Prasad 17. We have heard Sri Prem Prakash, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri A. K. Dwivedi, learned A. G. A. 18. The first point raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the F. I. R. lodged in this case is ante timed. In support of his argument, learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the fact that there was difference between the distance and direction of the place of occurrence from the police station as given in the F. I. R. with that as given in the G. D. and the two inquest reports. 19. After going through the judgment of the learned trial Court, we find that it has given ample reasons for discarding the above discrepancies pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants. 19. After going through the judgment of the learned trial Court, we find that it has given ample reasons for discarding the above discrepancies pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The trial Court in para 39 of the judgment has discussed in detail that in the F. I. R. the distance of the place of occurrence has been mentioned 6 miles north while in the corresponding G. D. Ex. Ka. 5 this distance has been mentioned as 5 miles west. As against this, the distance and direction of the place of occurrence from the police station in the two inquest reports has been mentioned by the Investigating Officer as 5 miles north. It appears that there is certainly conflict between the distance and direction of the place of occurrence from the police station as given in these documents. But from this discrepancy It cannot be inferred that the F. I. R. was not in existence at the time it purports to have been lodged and that the F. I. R. and G. D. were prepared only after. . P. W. 8 Sri Devi Dayal Dixit, the Investigating Officer of the case, had conducted the inquest on two dead bodies. This discrepancy could not have appeared in these documents even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that F. I. R. and G. D. were prepared after the return of the Investigating Officer after conducting inquest on the two dead bodies. In that case the distance as mentioned in the inquest reports would have squarely tallied with the F. I. R. and G. D. concerning the registering of the case. It is well known fact that at first chik report is prepared and then corresponding entry is made in G. D. Whereas the scribe of the chik report P. W. 5 constable Munni Lal had mentioned the distance of place of occurrence from the police station as 6 miles north in the chik report, the same should have been mentioned in the corresponding G. D. Thus the above discrepancy in the two records amounts to gross negligence or carelessness on the part of the constable P. W. 5 Munni Lal and P. W. 8 Devi Dayal Dixit, the Investigating Officer. But the prosecution should not be made to suffer because of the fault of the Investigating Officer. But the prosecution should not be made to suffer because of the fault of the Investigating Officer. In the present case, the Investigating Officer has admitted this fact that this difference between the chik report and other documents is the result of inadvertence. 20. Secondly, the learned Counsel for the appellants disputed the place of occurrence. According to him, the deceased had been killed elsewhere and none had seen the actual incident. But from the evidence of three eye-witnesses, namely, P. W. 1 Ganesh Shanker Misra, P. W. 2 Jhoori and P. W. 4 Kunwar Prasad, it is amply proved that the incident occurred at the place as alleged by the prosecution. Their evidence gets support from the statement of P. W. 8 Devi Dayal Dixit, the Investigating Officer of the case. The Investigating Officer had taken samples of blood stained and plain earth from the place where the deceased were murdered. He also recovered two empty cartridges from the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer also recovered Baniyan and Angauchha from the place of occurrence. Thus, we are of the opinion that the place of incident as alleged by the prosecution cannot be disputed. 21. The third point raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is bad in law as the accused-appellants were not heard on the question of sentence. He argued that the trial Court has committed gross illegality in not hearing the accused appellants on the question of sentence before awarding the sentence and this is a clear-cut violation of Sections 235 (2) and 354 (3) Cr. P. C. In this regard he placed reliance on a number of decisions and argued that the accused must be heard on the question of sentence. Off the other hand, learned A. G. A. argued that where minimum sentence provided by law is awarded, non-compliance of Section 235 (2) Cr. P. C. does not vitiate the order of sentence. In support of his argument, he relied upon a decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Moti Lal v. State of M. P. (Now Chhattisgarh), JT 2004 (1) SC 353, wherein the Supreme Court distinguished the case of Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1976 (4) SCC 190 . P. C. does not vitiate the order of sentence. In support of his argument, he relied upon a decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Moti Lal v. State of M. P. (Now Chhattisgarh), JT 2004 (1) SC 353, wherein the Supreme Court distinguished the case of Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1976 (4) SCC 190 . The Court held that the decision in Santa Singhs case (supra) was one where the sentence imposed was of death, the maximum, and in such circumstances, this Court thought fit to set aside the sentence alone and remand the same to give a hearing on the same. It was further held that it was indicated even there in the concurring judgment of S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, J. that no grievance can be made where minimum sentence under the provisions of law has been awarded. In Moti Lals case (Supra) the Supreme Court relied upon the case of Narpal Singh & others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 1066 , where the Court -remitted the case to Sessions Judge for consideration afresh on the question of sentence after giving opportunity only in respect of the accused on whom death sentence was imposed and straight-away disposed of and dismissed the appeal in respect of those accused who were sentenced to life imprisonment. Thus, we are of the opinion that the ratio of the judgments of Honble Supreme Court is that no grievance can be made where minimum sentence provided under the provisions of law has been awarded. In the present case, we find that the accused appellants have been awarded the minimum sentence as provided under law and, therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to them. It is not an illegality and the appellants cannot score any point on this premise. 22. Learned Counsel for the appellants next submitted that all the alleged eye-witnesses produced at the trial are chance witnesses and conviction cannot be recorded on their testimony. After going through the evidence of the three eye-witnesses produced at the trial, we are of the opinion that these witnesses are quite natural witnesses. They have sufficiently explained their presence at the place of occurrence and veracity of their evidence cannot be doubted. P. W. 1 Ganesh Shankar Misra is the son of (deceased Binda Prasad.) He was employed as constable. They have sufficiently explained their presence at the place of occurrence and veracity of their evidence cannot be doubted. P. W. 1 Ganesh Shankar Misra is the son of (deceased Binda Prasad.) He was employed as constable. He had come home taking three days casual leave, as he had to go to his sisters place. The deceased Binda Prasad had purchased a mango tree. P. W. 1 Ganesh Shankar Misra, P. W. 2 Jhoori and P. W. 4 Kunwar Prasad alongwith the deceased Binda Prasad had gone in the grove for cutting the wood of mango tree. It was quite natural for these villagers to have gone for cutting the wood of fallen mango tree. P. W. 2 Jhoori and P. W. 4 Kunwar Prasad supported the version of P. W. 1 Ganesh Shankar Misra. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that they are chance witnesses, we find their evidence to be trustworthy and reliable. It was held in the case of Bahal Singh v. State of Harayana, AIR 1976 SC 2032 , that the evidence of chance witness is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable but requires cautious and close scrutiny. After going through the evidence of the three eye-witnesses produced at the trial, we find that there is consistency in their evidence. They all have given plausible reason for their presence in the grove and in the circumstances of the case, their presence at the place of occurrence was quite natural. Learned Counsel for the appellants could not point out any discrepancy in their evidence. 23. Learned Counsel for the appellants next argued that there is inconsistency between the medical evidence and oral testimony and when there is inconsistency between the medical evidence and the version given by the eye-witnesses, it will not be safe to base conviction on the basis of oral testimony. It is well settled that if there is minor discrepancy between the medical evidence and oral testimony, the evidence given by the eye-witnesses cannot be discarded. It is also well settled that when there is gross inconsistency between them, it will not be safe to record conviction on the basis of their evidence. In the present case, we find that there is no inconsistency between the medical evidence and the oral account given by the three eye-witnesses. It is also well settled that when there is gross inconsistency between them, it will not be safe to record conviction on the basis of their evidence. In the present case, we find that there is no inconsistency between the medical evidence and the oral account given by the three eye-witnesses. All the three eye- witnesses have deposed that the accused appellants were armed with guns, Pharsas and Lathis. The injuries sustained by the two deceased were found to have been caused by the said weapons. The deceased Ram Kumar sustained three incised wounds, one gunshot wound of entry and four gun shot wounds of exit. The deceased Binda Prasad sustained eight incised wounds and one contusion. It has come in the evidence of P. W. 1 Ganesh Shankar Misra that accused appellant Goverdhan while chasing deceased Ram Kumar fired a shot from a distance of 15-16 steps. Thereafter he fell down and other accused assaulted him with Pharsas and Lathis. He died instantly. When the deceased Binda Prasad intervened, he was also fired a shot by the accused appellant Ram Sajivan but the shot fired by him missed and he fell down on the ground out of panic. Thereafter, other accused persons assaulted him with Lathi and Pharsas and he also succumbed to the injuries. Accused appellant Behari then gave a Pharsa blow on the neck of deceased and when it was not cut, the accused Ram Sajivan brought a Kulhari and gave a Kulhari blow separating the neck from his body. There is minor discrepancy in the evidence of these eye-witnesses with regard to the fact as to from what distance the shot was fired by accused Goverdhan upon deceased Ram Kumar. P. W. 1 Ganesh Shankar Misra deposed that the shot was fired from a distance of 15-16 steps whereas the gunshot injury sustained by the deceased establishes that the shot was fired from a distance of 6 feet. Other witnesses have also deposed similarly. In the present case, two persons have been done to death with utmost cruelty. Upon the killing of near and dear ones, the witnesses cannot be expected to observe minutely the distance from where the shot was fired. The eye-witnesses being the innocent villagers could not observe with precision the distance from which the shot was fired. On account of this minor discrepancy, the evidence of these eye-witnesses cannot be discarded. Upon the killing of near and dear ones, the witnesses cannot be expected to observe minutely the distance from where the shot was fired. The eye-witnesses being the innocent villagers could not observe with precision the distance from which the shot was fired. On account of this minor discrepancy, the evidence of these eye-witnesses cannot be discarded. Thus, this argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants is also without merit and is liable to be rejected. In the case of State of U. P. v. Sughar Singh & others, AIR 1978 SC 191 , it was held that if there is slight inconsistency between the eye-witness account and the medical evidence as to the distance from which shot was fired, it is of no significance where direct evidence of eye-witnesses as to the firing is available. 24. We should also point out that in the case of Amar Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1973 SC 2221 , it was held that, non-examination of disinterested neighbours residing near the place of occurrence is no 1 ground for disbelieving the eye-witnesses even though they are related to or interested in the complainant when there is no evidence to show that any person other than the eye-witnesses saw The occurrence. 25. Learned Counsel for the appellants next argued that the only injury suffered by the deceased Binda Prasad is Lathi injury and the other demised had not suffered any Lathi injury. He further argued that the contusion might be caused by the handle of Pharsa. He argued that four accused persons are said to be armed with Lathis but only one Lathi injury had been caused and it is not known as to who caused the said injury. He, thus, submitted that the accused who were armed with Lathis are entitled to acquittal. We find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants. In the absence of specific allegation as to who caused the said Lathi injury, the accused appellants who are said to be armed with Lathis should be afforded the benefit of doubt and they should be acquitted. 26. Lastly, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that so far as the accused Ram Sajivan is concerned, although there is allegation that he fired upon Binda Prasad, but he escaped unhurt and no other role has been assigned to him. 26. Lastly, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that so far as the accused Ram Sajivan is concerned, although there is allegation that he fired upon Binda Prasad, but he escaped unhurt and no other role has been assigned to him. His submission is that in these circumstances, accused Ram Sajivan is also entitled to acquittal. We find force in this submission also of learned Counsel for the appellants. We find that except firing a shot upon deceased Binda Prasad, which allegedly missed and did not cause any injury to him, no other role has been assigned to him. In these circumstances accused appellant Ram Sajjivan should also be given the benefit of doubt and should be acquitted. 27. It was held in Amar Singhs case (Supra) that conviction of an accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, though charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, is not illegal when the facts proved and evidence adduced would have been the same if the accused had been charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 28. In the result, we partly allow this appeal. The order of conviction and sentences recorded against the accused appellants Ram Prasad son of Chheda, Ganga Prasad, Ram Swarup, Ram Prasad son of Ram Swarup and Ram Sajivan is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. They need not surrender. 29. As regards accused appellants Goverdhan Prasad, Sidh Raj and Behari alias Mahabir, they are found guilty of committing murder of Ram Kumar @ Vibhuti and Binda Prasad in furtherance of their common intention. But instead of Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, they are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. With the aforesaid modification, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is affirmed. The appellants Goverdhan Prasad, Sidh Raj and Behari alias Mahabir who are on bail, shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them. 30. The judgment be immediately certified to the lower Court for reporting compliance within two months. Appeal allowed. .