VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J. ( 1 ) STATE of U. P. has preferred this appeal against the judgement and order dated 13. 08. 1981 passed in S. T. No. 248-A of 1980 by the Sessions Judge Pilibhit, who acquitted the accused-respondents of the charge under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. ( 2 ) MURDER of two real brothers named Rudra Pal and Dharam Pal was committed at about 8. 00 a. m. on 02. 07. 1980. Instant appeal relates to the murder of Dharam Pal, whose murder is said to have been committed in his own field situated in village Rampura Parvin, P. S. Bhuta, District Bareilly. The murder of Rudra Pal is said to have been committed in the field of one Kedar Nath, situated in village Richhola, P. S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit. ( 3 ) JOINT first information report of both murders was lodged on 02. 07. 1980 at P. S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit by Jaskaran Pal, S/o the deceased Rudra Pal. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on the day of occurrence Rudra Pal and Dharam Pal along with the servant Bhajan Lal (P. W. 2) had gone to their field situated in village Rampura Parvin and started the work of constructing the mend. A little before 8. 00 a. m. Km. Munni Devi (P. W. 3) D/o Dharam Pal (deceased) along with her cousin brother Mohan Swaroop @ Ballu S/o her another uncle came to the field bringing the breakfast for Dharam Pal and servant Bhajan Lal. As the breakfast for Rudra Pal was not brought, he was asked by Dharam Pal to go home and take his breakfast there and also to give fodder etc. to the cattle. It is alleged that thereafter, Rudra Pal left the field leaving Dharam Pal, Bhajan Lal, Km. Munni Devi and Ballu there. In the way, when Rudra Pal reached near the field of Kedar Nath, at about 8. 00 a. m. , he was way-laid by four persons named Deena Nath, Subhash, Fattey Chand and Komil who committed his murder. This incident is said to have been witnessed by the informant Jaskaran Pal (P. W. 1) and Har Prasad. In the way, when Rudra Pal reached near the field of Kedar Nath, at about 8. 00 a. m. , he was way-laid by four persons named Deena Nath, Subhash, Fattey Chand and Komil who committed his murder. This incident is said to have been witnessed by the informant Jaskaran Pal (P. W. 1) and Har Prasad. At about the same time, the respondents/accused Ram Murti, Ramesh, Siyaram and Banwari armed with Bhallas and Kantas came to the field of Dharam Pal and caused injuries to him with their weapons, due to which he succumbed to the injuries at the spot. This incident was witnessed by Bhajan Lal (P. W. 2), Munni Devi (P. W. 3) and Ballu. It is said that Km. Munni Devi on account of fear rushed towards the village and Bhajan Lal along with Ballu went towards adjoining village Rampura Parvin. The accused Ram Murti and Ramesh were armed with Bhalas whereas the accused Siyaram and Banwari were armed with Kantas. When the informant was standing near the dead body of his father Rudra Pal, P. W. 3 Km. Munni Devi came there and informed him about murder of her father Dharam Pal. It is said that Deena Nath and Siyaram etc. used to graze their cattle in the field of informant, thereby causing damage to the crops, for which Rudra Pal and Dharam Pal had asked them many times not to cause damage, due to which these persons were having enmity with family members of the informant. ( 4 ) ON seeing the murder of his father Rudra Pal and getting information regarding murder of his uncle Dharam Pal, the informant Jaskaran Pal went to P. S. Bisalpur District Pilibhit and lodged the first information report there. Case under section 302 IPC was registered against Deena Nath, Subhash, Fattey Chand and Komil for the murder of Rudra Pal and against Ram Murti, Ramesh, Siyaram and Banwari for the murder of Dharam Pal at Case Crime No. 188 of 1980. Sub Inspector Indra Pal Malik (P. W. 5) was present at P. S. Bisalpur at the time of lodging the FIR. He started investigation immediately and after recording the statement of Jaskaran Pal and Head Moharrir Brij Ram Sharma, he along with other police personnel proceeded to the place of occurrence and reached there on 03. 07. Sub Inspector Indra Pal Malik (P. W. 5) was present at P. S. Bisalpur at the time of lodging the FIR. He started investigation immediately and after recording the statement of Jaskaran Pal and Head Moharrir Brij Ram Sharma, he along with other police personnel proceeded to the place of occurrence and reached there on 03. 07. 1980 in the morning as boat could not be made available on 02. 07. 1980 to cross the river. After conducting inquest proceeding on the dead body of Rudra Pal, P. W. 5 S. I. Indra Pal Malik reached the place where dead body of the deceased Dharam Pal was lying and conducted inquest proceedings, during which inquest report Ext. Ka 3 and connected papers Ext. Ka 4 to Ext. Ka 5 were prepared. Thereafter, both the dead bodies in sealed condition were sent for post-mortem examination through the constables Shyam Behari Lal and Kunwar Singh. ( 5 ) THE post-mortem examination on the person of deceased Dharam Pal was conducted by Dr. C. B. Singh (P. W. 4) on 04. 07. 1980 at 3. 00 p. m. . According to the post-mortem report Ext. Ka 2, the following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body. 1. Incised wound 12 cm. x 6 cm x bone deep on right side back. 2. Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm on top of skull. 3. Incised wound 10 cm x 6 cm x 8 cm on back of right shoulder. 4. Punctured wound 3 cm x 1. 5 cm x 5 cm deep on back of left side chest. 5. Incised wound 4 cm x 1. 5 cm x muscle deep on front of right arm 6 cm above elbow. 6. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on front of right arm in front of elbow. 7. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on inner side of right wrist. 8. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on outer side of base of right index finger. 9. Contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on upper abdomen. 10. Punctured wound 4 cm x 2 cm x 6 cm deep on front of right thigh upper part. 11. Punctured wound 4 cm x 1. 5 cm x 5 cm deep on front of right thigh middle part. 12. 9. Contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on upper abdomen. 10. Punctured wound 4 cm x 2 cm x 6 cm deep on front of right thigh upper part. 11. Punctured wound 4 cm x 1. 5 cm x 5 cm deep on front of right thigh middle part. 12. Punctured wound 4 cm x 2 cm x 6 cm deep in front of left thigh upper part. 13. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm deep on inner side of left ankle joint. 14. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on inner side of left foot. In internal examination, small quantity of blood in both chambers of heart was found, the stomach and small intestine were empty but the large intestine was loaded with faeces. About 60 c. c. Urine was found in the bladder. The cause of death was haemorrhage and shock. ( 6 ) INVESTIGATION of both the murders was conducted jointly in the beginning by Sub Inspector Indra Pal Malik (P. W. 5) and thereafter, by S. O. Ram Lakhan Singh. During the course of investigation, blood stained and simple earth were collected from near the place where the dead body of Dharam Pal was found lying and fard Ext. Ka 6 was prepared by Sub Inspector Jai Bir Singh, who also prepared the fard Ext. ka 7 of two spades, which were found lying in the field where the murder of Dharam Pal was committed. In the same field, one brass balty (Ext. 1), aluminium cane (Ext. 2), steel tumbler (Ext. 3) and a piece of cloth (Ext. 4) were also found lying, which were taken into possession and joint fard Ext. Ka 8 was prepared by Sub Inspector Jai Bir Singh. The statements of Km. Munni Devi, Bhajan Lal and the witnesses of inquest were recorded by Sub Inspector Indra Pal Malik, who also prepared site plan (Ext. Ka 9 ). On 05. 07. 1980, the investigation was taken up by S. O. Ram Lakhan Singh, who after investigation, submitted joint charge sheet against all the eight accused. The statements of Km. Munni Devi, Bhajan Lal and the witnesses of inquest were recorded by Sub Inspector Indra Pal Malik, who also prepared site plan (Ext. Ka 9 ). On 05. 07. 1980, the investigation was taken up by S. O. Ram Lakhan Singh, who after investigation, submitted joint charge sheet against all the eight accused. ( 7 ) ON the case being committed to the court of session for trial, S. T. No. 248 of 1980 was registered against all the eight accused, but subsequently trial was splitted up and S. T. No. 248 A of 1980 was registered against the accused-respondents, who were charged under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 8 ) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses in all. P. W. 1 Jaskaran Pal is the informant, who had lodged the joint FIR of both the murders. He is not the eye witness of the murder of deceased Dharam Pal. Written report Ext. Ka 1, has been proved by this witness in his statement recorded in trial court on 02. 07. 1981. P. W. 2 Bhajan Lal and P. W. 3 Km. Munni Devi are the eye witnesses of the murder of Dharam Pal. P. W. 4 Dr. C. B. Singh had conducted post-mortem examination on the person of deceased Dharam Pal vide post-mortem report Ext. Ka 2. P. W. 5. Sub Inspector Indra Pal Malik is the first Investigating Officer, who has proved inquest report Ext. ka3 and connected papers Ext. Ka 4 to Ka 5. Fard Ext. Ka 6 to Ext. Ka 8 also have been proved by this witness by recognizing the writing and signature of Sub Inspector Jai Bir Singh. Site plan (Ext. Ka 9) has also been proved by Sub Inspector Indar Pal Malik. The charge sheet, certified copy of which is Ext. Ka 12 was submitted by second investigating officer S. O. Ram Lakhan Singh. P. W. 6 Gaj Ram Sharma is the scriber of chik FIR and G. D. regarding registration of case. ( 9 ) IN their statements recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. , accused persons have denied to have committed the murder of Dharam Pal. However, they have not produced any oral evidence in defence, but they have relied upon three documents which have been marked as Ext. ( 9 ) IN their statements recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. , accused persons have denied to have committed the murder of Dharam Pal. However, they have not produced any oral evidence in defence, but they have relied upon three documents which have been marked as Ext. Kha 1 to Ext. Kha 3, which are extracts from the statements of witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. with which these two witnesses were confronted in their cross examination. ( 10 ) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties and appraisal of the evidence, the learned court below has acquitted the respondents-accused vide impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 11 ) WE have heard Mrs. N. A Monis, learned AGA for the appellant State and Sri Brijesh Shahai, learned counsel for the accused-respondents and gone through the impugned judgment as well as entire evidence on record carefully. ( 12 ) IT was vehemently contended by learned AGA that more than sufficient reliable evidence is available on record to show the complicity of the respondents-accused in the incident of the murder of deceased Dharam Pal, but the learned trial judge on surmises and conjectures without sufficient reasons has acquitted the accused and since the findings recorded by the learned trial judge are perverse and against the evidence, hence impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the accused-respondents should be convicted for committing the murder of Dharam Pal. In this regard, it was contended by learned AGA that the eye witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi have fully supported the case of prosecution and their evidence is reliable and convincing, which is fully corroborated by the medical evidence, but the learned trial judge recording perverse findings has discarded the testimony of these witnesses without sufficient reason, whereas on the basis of the testimony of these witnesses, it is fully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the murder of Dharam Pal was committed in his field by the respondents-accused in furtherance of their common intention on 02. 07. 1980 at about 8. 00 a. m. . 07. 1980 at about 8. 00 a. m. . ( 13 ) ON the contrary, placing reliance on the cases of Kalyan and others vs. State of U. P. 2002 SCC (Cri.) 780 and State of Punjab vs. Ajaib Singh and others 2005 SCC (Cri.) 43, it was contended by Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused, that the findings recorded by the learned trial judge in favour of the accused-respondents are neither perverse nor against the evidence and hence in this appeal against acquittal, there is no scope for any interference by this Court, because discretion of this court in the appeal against acquittal is not as wide as in the appeal against conviction and in the appeal against acquittal, interference can be made by the appellate court only when the findings recorded by the trial judge are either perverse or against evidence. Supporting the impugned judgment, various other arguments were also made by the learned counsel for the respondents-accused. ( 14 ) BEFORE coming to the grounds on which the findings of acquittal have been recorded by the learned trial judge, let us scrutinize the evidence led by the prosecution to show the complicity of the accused-respondents in the incident of murder of Dharam Pal. ( 15 ) THERE is no dispute that the murder of Dharam Pal was committed in his own field on 02. 07. 1980. The learned trial judge also has mentioned in para 10 of the impugned judgment that murder of Dharam Pal was committed in his own field. The time of death has been disbelieved by the learned trial judge. In order to prove the complicity of the accused-respondents in the incident of murder of Dharam Pal on the alleged date, time and place, two eye witnesses Bhajan Lal (P. W. 2) and Km. Munni Devi (P. W. 3) have been examined by the prosecution. We have carefully gone through the statements of these witnesses. The order- sheet of S. T. No. 248a of 1980 shows that the statement of Bhajan Lal (P. W. 2) was recorded on 02. 07. 1981, although in examination-in-chief, the date of recording the statement has been inadvertently shown as 02. 07. 1980, because 02. 07. 1980 is the day of murder. The order- sheet of S. T. No. 248a of 1980 shows that the statement of Bhajan Lal (P. W. 2) was recorded on 02. 07. 1981, although in examination-in-chief, the date of recording the statement has been inadvertently shown as 02. 07. 1980, because 02. 07. 1980 is the day of murder. In his statement, Bhajan Lal (P. W. 2) has stated that about one year ago murder of Dharam Pal was committed in his field at about 8. 00 a. m. Regarding the incident, it is stated by this witness that on the date of occurrence when he and Dharam Pal as well as Rudra Pal were digging the mend in the field, Km. Munni Devi and Ballu bringing the breakfast came there and when on inquiry by Rudra Pal, they told that breakfast has not been brought for him, Dharam Pal told Rudra Pal to go to the house, whereupon Rudra Pal went away from there, leaving Dharam Pal, Bhajan Lal, Km. Munni Devi and Ballu there in the field. It is further stated by this witness that after 5-6 minuts, accused Banwari Lal, Siyaram, Ram Murti and Ramesh came there, out of which Siyaram and Banwari were armed with Kantas and Ram Murti and Ramesh were having Bhalas. The witness Bhajan Lal has further stated that after reaching there, without saying anything Banwari gave Kanta blow from behind to Dharam Pal and when after being injured Dharam Pal proceeded ahead, Siyaram also gave blow from Kanta and at the same time Ram Murti and Ramesh hit Dharam Pal by Bhalas due to which he fell down and succumbed to injuries at the spot. This incident is said to have been witnessed by Km. Munni Devi and Ballu also. It is further stated by this witness that after committing the murder of Dharam Pal, the accused persons fled away towards the canal and thereafter he and Ballu went away to village Rampura leaving Muni Devi near the dead body. ( 16 ) THE other eye witness examined by the prosecution is Km. Munni Devi, whose statement was recorded on 07. 07. 1981 as P. W. 3. She is the daughter of deceased Dharam Pal but she used to call him as uncle. Km. Munni Devi has stated in her statement that murder of her father Dharam Pal was committed about one year ago at about 8. Munni Devi, whose statement was recorded on 07. 07. 1981 as P. W. 3. She is the daughter of deceased Dharam Pal but she used to call him as uncle. Km. Munni Devi has stated in her statement that murder of her father Dharam Pal was committed about one year ago at about 8. 00 a. m. in their field in her presence. It is further stated by Km. Munni Devi that she along with Ballu had come on the field bringing breakfast (Roti) and when her elder uncle (Tau) Rudra Pal asked her whether she has brought roti for him also, she told that she has not brought roti for him, whereupon Dharam Pal asked Rudra Pal to go to the house, after which Rudra Pal went away from the field leaving her and her father Dharam Pal, servant Bhajan Lal and Ballu. P. W. 3 Km. Munni Devi has further stated that when her father was giving roti to Bhajnu (Bhajan Lal), the accused Banwari and Siyaram began to hit her father by Kanta and Ram Murti and Ramesh, who were armed with Sujas, also hit her father. Identifying all the four accused in court Km. Munni Devi has stated that when after killing her father, the accused persons fled away towards the canal, she proceeded towards her house and Bhajan Lal and Ballu fled away to village Rampura. It is further stated by this witness that when she was going to her house through the mends of the fields, Jaskaran Pal met her in the field where his father was lying dead and she told Jaskaran Pal that Banwari etc. have killed her uncle. It is clarified by Km. Munni Devi that she used to call her father as uncle. ( 17 ) LENGTHY cross-examination has been made by the learned defence counsel from aforesaid witnesses, but nothing material has been elicited from them in their cross-examination. These witnesses could not be shaken in cross-examination and they have fully supported the case of prosecution. We shall later on discuss the grounds on the basis of which, the testimony of these witnesses has been discarded by the learned trial judge. ( 18 ) THE testimony of the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi finds corroboration from the statement of P. W. 1 Jaskaran Pal and medical evidence on record. We shall later on discuss the grounds on the basis of which, the testimony of these witnesses has been discarded by the learned trial judge. ( 18 ) THE testimony of the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi finds corroboration from the statement of P. W. 1 Jaskaran Pal and medical evidence on record. The statement of Jaskaran Pal, who is the son of deceased Rudra Pal, was recorded on 02. 07. 1981. It is stated by this witness that murder of his father Rudra Pal and uncle Dharam Pal was committed on 02. 07. 1980 at about 8. 00 a. m. It is further stated by this witness that when he was standing near the dead body of his father in the field of Kedar at about 8. 00 a. m. , his cousin sister Km. Munni Devi came there and told him that Banwari and Siyaram by Kantas and Ram Murti and Ramesh by Bhalas have killed her uncle in the field near canal. It is clarified by this witness that Km. Munni Devi is the daughter of Dharam Pal, but she used to call his father as uncle. This witness has further stated that on getting this information, when he went to the field, he found the dead body of his uncle Dharam Pal lying there. ( 19 ) POST-MORTEM examination on the dead body of deceased Dharam Pal was conducted by Dr. C. B. Singh (P. W. 4), vide post-mortem report (Ext. Ka 2 ). We have mentioned above the ante mortem injuries which were found on the person of deceased Dharam Pal at the time of post-mortem examination. Nine incised wounds, four punctured wounds and one contusion were found on the dead body. Dr. C. B. Singh has stated in his statement that incised wounds, which were found on the dead body, are possible to be caused by Kantas and punctured wounds may be caused by pointed four sided blunt-edged weapon. The grounds on which the learned trial judge has found inconsistency in ocular and medical evidence will be discussed later on, but we are of the considered opinion that the anti-mortem injuries of deceased Dharam Pal may be caused by the weapons with which the accused-respondents were armed and in our view there is no material inconsistency in ocular and medical evidence. ( 20 ) ON the basis of foregoing discussion, we have come to the conclusion that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that murder of Dharam Pal was committed by the accused-respondents, but the learned trial judge recording perverse and unreasonable findings in the impugned judgment has acquitted the accused-respondents without sufficient reasons. ( 21 ) NOW we take up the main findings recorded by the learned trial judge on the basis of which the accused- respondents have been acquitted. ( 22 ) MOTIVE - The learned trial judge after analysing the evidence has recorded the following finding on the point of motive in para 13 of the judgment at page 10:- "under the circumstances, I will agree with the learned counsel for the accused that there is no reliable evidence on record to prove that these accused had in fact any motive muchless an immediate motive to commit such a heinous crime as to murder the real brothers at about the same time. " ( 23 ) ON the point of motive for committing the crime, it is suffice to say that where there is direct reliable evidence to show the complicity of any accused in the commission of crime, the matter of motive looses significance and prosecution case cannot be thrown out, even if the motive as alleged is not established or is week. Honble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and another vs. State of M. P. 2002 (44) ACC 994 (SC) has held that absence of motive would not in any manner destabilize the prosecution case. Similar view has been expressed by Honble Apex Court in the case of Man Kumar Thapa vs. State of Sikkim AIR 2002 SC 2920 . In case of Thaman Kumar vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh 2003 (47) ACC 7 (SC), the Honble Apex Court has observed that there is no such principle or rule of law that where prosecution fails to prove the motive, it must necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. In case of Thaman Kumar vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh 2003 (47) ACC 7 (SC), the Honble Apex Court has observed that there is no such principle or rule of law that where prosecution fails to prove the motive, it must necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid observations made by Honble Apex Court, the accused respondents are not entitled to get any benefit, even if it is assumed that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the immediate motive for committing the murder of Dharam Pal, because on the basis of oral evidence of aforesaid two witnesses, which is corroborated by medical evidence, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that murder of Dharam Pal was committed by the accused-respondents on the alleged date, time and place. ( 24 ) TIME OF MURDER - On the basis of presence of faecal matter (faeces) in the large intestine of the deceased Dharam Pal at the time of post-mortem examination, the learned trial judge has drawn inference that the murder of Dharam Pal might have been committed before sun rise at about 4. 00 a. m. . It is also opined by the learned trial judge that the statements of the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi regarding time of committing the murder of deceased Dharam Pal are not reliable. Supporting the findings of the learned trial judge, it was contended by Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the accused-respondents that at the time of post-mortem examination on the person of deceased Dharam Pal, his large intestine was found loaded with faeces (faecal matter), which is indicative of the fact that the deceased had not eased himself at the time of murder and since the people and specially in villages, eased themselves before sun rise, hence on this ground it can very well to be said the murder of Dharam Pal might have been committed before sun rise. The contention of learned counsel for the accused-respondents was that had the deceased attended the natural call before his murder, his large intestine also would have been empty like small intestine, but since the faecal matter was found loaded in the large intestine, inference will be drawn that murder of the deceased Dharam Pal was committed before attending natural call and in all probability his murder might have been committed before sun rise at about 4. 00 a. m. . We are not impressed with this contention of the learned counsel for the accused- respondents and in our considered view, the finding on this point recorded by the learned trial judge in the impugned judgment is unreasonable and perverse. Merely due to the presence of faecal matter in the large intestine of the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination, it cannot be inferred that he had not eased himself, because even after attending natural call, faeces (faecal matter) may be found in large intestine, because passing of the entire faecal matter from large intestine at one time easing is not essential. It is seen that some people had to go to attend natural call twice or thrice in the morning. It may be possible that in some cases entire faecal matter may pass out from the large intestine in one time easing, but it is not essential in all cases. The age of the deceased Dharam Pal was about 62 years. Therefore, in spite of easing himself by deceased Dharam Pal before his murder, the possibility of not passing out the entire faecal matter from large intestine cannot be ruled out. Therefore, in our view, the time of murder of deceased Dharam Pal as told by the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi is not falsified, due to the presence of faeces in his large intestine at the time of post-mortem examination. As such, the finding recorded by the learned trial judge on this point is certainly perverse and unreasonable. ( 25 ) INCONSISTENCY IN OCULAR AND MEDICAL EVIDENCE.- The learned trial judge has recorded finding that there is material inconsistency in ocular and medical evidence. This finding has been recorded on two grounds. The first ground is that at the time of post-mortem examination on the person of deceased Dharam Pal, his stomach was found empty, whereas the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. This finding has been recorded on two grounds. The first ground is that at the time of post-mortem examination on the person of deceased Dharam Pal, his stomach was found empty, whereas the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi have stated before the Investigating Officer at the time of interrogation under section 161 Cr. P. C. that half bread was eaten by Dharam Pal before his murder. Supporting the finding on this point, it was contended by learned counsel for the accused-respondents that the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Muni Devi have made false statements before the Investigating Officer about eating half bread by the deceased Dharam Pal just before his murder, because their statements in this regard recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. are against the post-mortem report and, hence on this ground it can be said that these witnesses had not seen the occurrence. We are not impressed with this submission of learned counsel for the accused-respondents. In their statements recorded in the trial court, the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Muni Devi have denied the statements recorded in Ext. Kha 2 and Kha 3 and they have stated that they did not tell the Investigating Officer about eating half bread by the deceased Dharam Pal before the incident of murder. Therefore, on the basis of the statements recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. by the Investigating Officer vide Ext. Kha 2 and Ext. Kha 3, it cannot be said that there is any material inconsistency in ocular and medical evidence, because in their substantive evidence recorded in the trial court, the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi have stated that the deceased Dharam Pal had not eaten even a morsel at the time of his murder and when he was giving bread to Bhajan Lal, the incident occurred. Therefore, having regard to the substantive evidence of these witnesses recorded in trial court, we cannot approve the finding of learned trial judge recorded in this regard, because the said finding is unreasonable. ( 26 ) THE other ground on the basis of which the finding of material inconsistency in ocular and medical evidence has been recorded by the learned trial judge is that punctured wounds which were found on the person of deceased Dharam Pal at the time of post-mortem examination were not caused by four sided pointed Bhala. ( 26 ) THE other ground on the basis of which the finding of material inconsistency in ocular and medical evidence has been recorded by the learned trial judge is that punctured wounds which were found on the person of deceased Dharam Pal at the time of post-mortem examination were not caused by four sided pointed Bhala. In this regard, it was submitted by learned counsel for the accused-respondents that since no star shaped punctured wound was found on the person of deceased Dharam Pal at the time of post-mortem examination, hence on this ground it can be said that there is inconsistency in the medical evidence and statements of the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi. We are not impressed with this argument also. Ante mortem injury no. 4, 10, 11 and 12 as noted in the post-mortem report are punctured wounds. The witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi have stated that the accused Ram Murti and Ramesh were armed with Bhalas, although Km. Munni Devi in her statement has mentioned word Suja in place of Bhala. At the time of argument it was brought to our notice that Bhala and Suja is the same weapon and some people called the Bhala as Suja. As such from the testimony of the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi, this fact is born out that the accused Ram Murti and Ramesh were armed with Bhalas (Sujas in the language of Km. Munni Devi ). In para 8 of her statement Km. Munni Devi has stated that Sujas were long, pointed and four sided. Dr. C. B. Singh (P. W. 4), who conducted the autopsy on the person of deceased Dharam Pal has stated in para 5 of his statement that punctured wounds may be caused by pointed four sided blunt edged weapon. Although during cross-examination in para 13 of his statement Dr. C. B. Singh has stated that since no wound was of star shaped, hence these wounds were not possible to be caused by four sided weapon. At the time of cross-examination of Dr. C. B. Singh, four sided pointed weapon was shown to him by state counsel, as is evident from para 9 of the statement of this witness. This weapon was not used in the murder of Dharam Pal. At the time of cross-examination of Dr. C. B. Singh, four sided pointed weapon was shown to him by state counsel, as is evident from para 9 of the statement of this witness. This weapon was not used in the murder of Dharam Pal. Therefore, any statement given by this witness on the basis of the weapon shown to him will not be relevant. Merely, because in the opinion of Dr. C. B. Singh no star shaped wound was found on the person of deceased Dharam Pal at the time of post-mortem examination, it cannot be said that the puncture wounds found on the person of deceased were not possible to be caused by Bhala. Moreover, Dr. C. B. Singh himself has stated in para 5 of his statement that punctured wounds which were found on the person of deceased were possible to be caused by pointed four sided blunt edged weapon. Therefore, on the basis of the opinion expressed in cross-examination by Dr. C. B. Singh, it cannot be said that Bhalas were not used in the commission of murder of Dharam Pal. On the basis of the reliable testimony of the witnesses Bhajan Lal andKm. Munni Devi it is fully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Ram Murti and Ramesh had caused injuries to deceased Dharam Pal by Bhalas (Sujas in the language of Km. Munni Devi ). Dr. C. B Singh also has no where stated that punctured wounds, which were found on the person of deceased Dharam Pal at the time of post-mortem examination are not possible to be caused by Bhalas. Rather he has specifically stated in para 5 of his statement that ante mortem incised wounds found on the person of deceased were possible to be caused by Kantas and punctured wounds were possible to be caused by pointed four sided blunt edges weapon. It is not disputed that Bhala is also pointed weapon which may be either four sided or round shaped. The edged of four sided Bhala may be sharp or blunt. In the opinion of Dr. C. B. Singh, ante-mortem punctured wounds were possible to be caused by pointed four sided blunt edged weapon. As mentioned above, the accused Ram Murti and Ramesh were armed with Bhalas (Sujas in the language of Km. Munni Devi ). The edged of four sided Bhala may be sharp or blunt. In the opinion of Dr. C. B. Singh, ante-mortem punctured wounds were possible to be caused by pointed four sided blunt edged weapon. As mentioned above, the accused Ram Murti and Ramesh were armed with Bhalas (Sujas in the language of Km. Munni Devi ). Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any material inconsistency in ocular and medical evidence regarding nature of injuries and weapons used in the commission of murder of Dharam Pal and hence the finding recorded to the contrary by the learned trial judge is not only unreasonable but perverse. ( 27 ) CONTRADICTION IN THE STATEMENT OF WITNESSES.- The testimony of the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi has been discarded by the learned trial judge due to some contradictions in their statements. We have carefully gone through the entire statements of these witnesses. In our considered view, there is no material contradiction in the testimony of these witnesses regarding the incident and due to some minor contradictions regarding post murder events, the reliable testimony of these witnesses cannot be discarded. Regarding the contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi, it was submitted by learned counsel for the accused-respondents that according to the statement of the witness Bhajan Lal, when he left the place of occurrence after murder of Dharam Pal, Munni Devi was left there near the dead body, but Km. Munni Devi in her statement has stated that when after committing the murder of her father, the accused persons fled away towards the canal, she proceeded towards her house and Bhajan Lal and Ballu also went away to village Rampura. In our view, this contradiction regarding post murder event is not very material and on the basis of such contradiction, the testimony of these witnesses cannot be discarded. Our attention was drawn towards the statements of Km. Munni Devi and Investigating Officer Indra Pal Malik (P. W. 5) and it was submitted by learned counsel for the accused-respondents that there is contradiction in the statements of these witnesses regarding the place where Km. Munni Devi was interrogated during investigation. It is true that Km. Our attention was drawn towards the statements of Km. Munni Devi and Investigating Officer Indra Pal Malik (P. W. 5) and it was submitted by learned counsel for the accused-respondents that there is contradiction in the statements of these witnesses regarding the place where Km. Munni Devi was interrogated during investigation. It is true that Km. Munni Devi in para 9 of her statement has stated that when Darogaji came at the place of occurrence, she was called by him through Jaskaran Pal, but she did not go to the place where the dead body of her father was lying and she remained present near the dead body of her Tau Rudra Pal, whereas Sub Inspection Indra Pal Malik (P. W. 5) has stated in his statement that he had recorded the statement of Km. Munni Devi at the place where the dead body of Dharam Pal was lying. In our view this contradiction regarding the place of interrogation of Km. Munni Devi by the Investigating Officer is also not very material and due to this contradiction also, wholly reliable testimony of Km. Munni Devi cannot be discarded. There is no material contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses and the finding recorded to the contrary by the learned trial judge in the impugned judgment is not reasonable. ( 28 ) LATCHES OF INVESTIGATING OFFICER.- Certain latches on the part of the Investigating Officer have been pointed out by the learned trial judge in the impugned judgment. Supporting the finding of learned trial judge on this point, it was contended by the learned counsel for the accused-respondents that the time of death has not been shown in column two of the Chalan Lash, which shows the negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondents that time of recording the statements of the witnesses and other activities has not been mentioned in the case diary, which also shows the gross negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-respondents that the papers of the case diary were kept by the Investigating Officer with him for three days, whereas he was required to submit the papers daily to the Circle Officer. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-respondents that the papers of the case diary were kept by the Investigating Officer with him for three days, whereas he was required to submit the papers daily to the Circle Officer. On the point of latches of Investigating Officer, it was submitted by the learned AGA that due to any lapses or latches on the part of the Investigating Officer, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out. Having given our thoughtful consideration to this matter, we agree with the submission of the learned AGA that due to any lapse or latches on the part of the Investigating Officer, prosecution case cannot be thrown out. The full Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal and others vs. State of U. P. (1999) JIC 858, has held that the weakness of the investigation is no ground to reject the direct testimony of the prosecution witnesses. In this regard, reference may be made to the cases of State of Rajasthan vs. Kishore and others 1996 (33) ACC 284 and State of West Bengal vs. Meer Mohd. Omar and others 2000 (41) ACC 598 also. Therefore, having regard to the well settled principle of law, the accused-respondents are not entitled to get any benefit due to any weakness of investigation or latches and lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, because it is well settled principle of law that if the evidence led by the prosecution is convincing and reliable, then prosecution case cannot be discarded due to lapses or latches on the part of Investigating Officer. Therefore, the finding to the contrary recorded by the learned trial judge on this matter is not reasonable. ( 29 ) FIRST INFORMATION REPORT - Supporting the finding recorded by the learned trial judge regarding First Information Report, it was submitted by learned counsel for the accused-respondents that the FIR is ante-timed and it was lodged with great delay. We are not impressed with this submission and the findings recorded by the learned trial judge on these points are unreasonable. The murder of father and uncle of the informant Jaskaran Pal was committed on 02. 07. 1980 at about 8. 00 a. m. Joint FIR regarding both murders was lodged by the informant on the same day at 2. 35 p. m. after covering the distance of about 7 km. The murder of father and uncle of the informant Jaskaran Pal was committed on 02. 07. 1980 at about 8. 00 a. m. Joint FIR regarding both murders was lodged by the informant on the same day at 2. 35 p. m. after covering the distance of about 7 km. The explanation of delay in lodging the FIR has been furnished by the informant Jaskaran Pal (P. W. 1) in para 7 of his statement, which is satisfactory. Therefore, having regard to the facts of this case, delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal. We do not find any force in the contention that the FIR is ante-timed. From the statement of the Investigating Officer Indra Pal Malik (P. W. 5), this fact is born out that investigation was started at P. S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, on 02. 07. 1980 just after registration of the case. Crime number has been mentioned in the inquest report. As such the learned trial judge was not justified in holding the FIR ante-timed and we are not impressed with the finding recorded in this regard by the learned trial judge, as the said finding is unreasonable. ( 30 ) TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES BHAJAN LAL AND KM. MUNNI DEVI.- The testimony of the witness Bhajan lal has not been believed by the learned trial judge on the ground that he is inimical to the accused persons and the testimony of Km. Munni Devi has not been given importance on the ground that she is near relative of deceased Dharam Pal, being his daughter. It is true that the witness Bhajan Lal was accused in the murder of Sewa Ram, grandfather of the accused Siya Ram and it is also true that there was enmity between the accused persons and witness Bhajan lal, but since the testimony of this witness is reliable and convincing, hence it will not be proper to discard his testimony merely because in the case of murder of Sewa Ram, which was committed about 20-25 years ago, the witness Bhajan Lal was made the accused. It is worthwhile to mention that Bhajan Lal was acquitted in that case as is evident from para 9 of his statement. If on the ground of enmity, the testimony of the witness Bhajan Lal is not taken into account, even then the reliable testimony of Km. It is worthwhile to mention that Bhajan Lal was acquitted in that case as is evident from para 9 of his statement. If on the ground of enmity, the testimony of the witness Bhajan Lal is not taken into account, even then the reliable testimony of Km. Munni Devi, cannot be discarded, merely because she is the daughter of deceased Dharam Pal. It is well settled principle of law that the testimony of any witness cannot be discarded on the ground that he is related to the victim or deceased. It is also well settled that near relative of the deceased will not falsely implicate innocent persons sparing the real culprits. Therefore, in instant case also, the reliable testimony of the witness Km. Munni Devi cannot be discarded on the ground that she is the daughter of deceased Dharam Pal. Km. Munni Devi is the natural witness, who had seen the accused-respondents committing the murder of her father Dharam Pal, which was committed in the day-light. Km. Munni Devi along with her cousin brother Ballu had brought break fast for her father and servant Bhajan Lal. At the time of spot inspection by Sub Inspector Indra Pal Malik (P. W. 5) on 03. 07. 1980, one brass balti Ext 1, aluminium cane Ext 2, steel tumbler Ext. 3 and one piece of cloth Ext. 4 were found lying in the field in which murder of Dharam Pal was committed. All these articles were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and joint fard Ext. Ka 8 was got prepared by Sub- Inspector Jai Beer Singh. In her statement in para 9, Km. Munni Devi has stated that she had brought sarvat in silver cane (cammandal), Rotis with vegetable kept in the cloth, one brass balti and steel tumbler. In para 11, it is stated by Km. Munni Devi that she had brought water from the house in brass balti. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness, because her testimony finds corroboration from Fard Ext. Ka 8, which pertains to the aforesaid articles, which were found lying in the field at the time of spot inspection by Investigating Officer. In villages and specially in western U. P. , the male persons generally go away to the fields to work early in the morning and thereafter breakfast is brought either by ladies or children of the family. In villages and specially in western U. P. , the male persons generally go away to the fields to work early in the morning and thereafter breakfast is brought either by ladies or children of the family. Therefore, in instant case, the presence of Km. Munni Devi at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted, because she along with her cousin brother Ballu had brought breakfast for her father and servant Bhajan Lal as told by in her statement, which is corroborated by the Fard Ext. Ka 8. There is no question of mistaken identity of the assailants, as the accused-respondents are known to the witnesses. As mentioned above, the testimony of Km. Munni Devi is wholly reliable. Hence her testimony cannot be discarded merely because she is the daughter of deceased Dharam Pal. The age of Km. Munni Devi was about 13-14 years at the time of occurrence. Murder of her father was committed in her presence in day light. There is no reason for Km. Munni Devi to tell lie and falsely implicate the accused-respondents sparing the real culprits. Therefore, in our considered view, the finding recorded by learned trial judge for discarding the testimony of Km. Munni Devi is not only unreasonable but perverse. ( 31 ) THE learned trial judge in para 27 of the impugned judgment has held that the possibility cannot be ruled out that the utensils were planted subsequently to give colour to the case. This finding of the learned trial judge is absolutely perverse, and hence cannot be approved. ( 32 ) IMPROVEMENT IN THE STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES.- The learned trial judge has discarded the testimony of the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi on the ground of improvements also. Supporting the finding on this point, it was submitted by learned counsel for the accused-respondents that before the Investigating Officer, the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi vide Ext. Kha 2 and Kha 3, had stated that the deceased Dharam Pal had eaten half bread before commission of the murder, but improvement has been made in their statements in trial court wherein they have stated that Dharam Pal had not started to take meal that the incident had occurred. Munni Devi vide Ext. Kha 2 and Kha 3, had stated that the deceased Dharam Pal had eaten half bread before commission of the murder, but improvement has been made in their statements in trial court wherein they have stated that Dharam Pal had not started to take meal that the incident had occurred. In this regard it was submitted by learned counsel for the accused-respondents that this improvement in the testimony of these witnesses has been made purposely after seeing the post-mortem report of deceased Dharam Pal, because in the post-mortem report Ext. Ka 2, the stomach was found empty and it was for this reason that the aforesaid witnesses in trial court have stated that the deceased Dharam Pal had not started to take meal before the incident. In our view the testimony of these witnesses cannot be discarded due to this so called improvement, because the testimony of these witnesses is reliable and convincing and they have denied the statements recorded by Investigating Officer vide Ext. Kha 3 and Ext. Kha 3. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial judge on the point of improvement in the testimony of the witnesses is unreasonable. ( 33 ) INVESTIGATION WITHOUT JURISDICTION - The learned trial judge has recorded finding that the police of Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit had no jurisdiction to investigate the case of murder of Dharam Pal, because his murder was committed in the area of village Rampura Parvin, P. S. Bhuta, District Bareilly and on this ground the investigation of the case of murder of deceased Dharam Pal is vitiated. We are not impressed with this argument. It has come in the evidence of Sub Inspector Indra Pal Malik (P. W. 5) that C. O. Bisalpur also had arrived at the place of occurrence and he had directed that investigation of both the murders would be continued by the same Investigating Officer of P. S. Bisalpur and it was for this reason that the investigation of the murder of Dharam Pal was also conducted by him. In our view the investigation of the murder of deceased Dharam Pal would not be vitiated merely because the investigation was conducted by Sub Inspector of P. S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, because the investigation can be entrusted to any police officer. In our view the investigation of the murder of deceased Dharam Pal would not be vitiated merely because the investigation was conducted by Sub Inspector of P. S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, because the investigation can be entrusted to any police officer. Hence the finding recorded to the contrary by the learned trial judge cannot be approved, because the said finding is not reasonable. ( 34 ) NON EXAMINATION OF WITNESS BALLU - According to the case of prosecution, the incident of murder of Dharam Pal is said to have been witnessed by the witness Ballu also, who had come to the field along with Km. Munni Devi, but he has not been examined in trial court by the prosecution. In our view, no benefit can be extended to the accused-respondents due to non-examination of the witness Ballu, because the case of prosecution has been fully proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of testimony of the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi. It is well settled principle of law the examination of all the witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet is not essential and the testimony of the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution and whose testimony is found reliable cannot be discarded due to non-examination of other witnesses of the charge-sheet. Therefore, in instant case also, the testimony of the witnesses Bhajan Lal and Km. Munni Devi cannot be discarded due to non-examination of third eye witness Ballu. The finding recorded by the learned trial judge to the contrary cannot be approved, being unreasonable. ( 35 ) THE main grounds on the basis of which, the findings of acquittal have been recorded by the learned trial judge have been discussed above. As stated above, these findings are unreasonable and perverse. We have already said above that on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record, it is fully proved beyond reasonable doubt that murder of Dharam Pal was committed by the accused-respondents on 02. 07. 1980 at about 8. 00 a. m. in his field situated in village Rampura Pervin, District Bareilly. Therefore, the accused-respondents are liable to be convicted of the charge framed against them. 07. 1980 at about 8. 00 a. m. in his field situated in village Rampura Pervin, District Bareilly. Therefore, the accused-respondents are liable to be convicted of the charge framed against them. ( 36 ) WE are conscious that in the appeal against acquittal, the powers of this Court are not as wide as in the appeal against conviction and we also know that in our administration of criminal justice, the accused is presumed to be innocent and if two views are possible on the evidence produced in the case, one indicating to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view in favour to the accused is to be accepted, but it is also equally well settled principle of law that the evidence led by the prosecution cannot be discarded by the trial court, taking it as false, untrustworthy or unreliable on fanciful grounds or on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The case of the prosecution has to be judged as a whole having regard to the totality of the evidence. Although there can always be two views on the evidence led by the prosecution in every case, but the appellate court has to judge whether the view taken by the trial court is reasonable or not. We have discussed above the evidence led by the prosecution in instance case as well as the grounds on the basis of which the findings of acquittal have been recorded by the trial judge. As stated earlier in the body of this judgment, the findings recorded by the learned trial judge are unreasonable and on some points perverse, which can not be approved. ( 37 ) IN the result, this Government Appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment and order dated 13. 08. 1981 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Pilibhit in S. T. No. 248a of 1980 are hereby set aside and the respondents-accused Ram Murti, Siya Ram, Banwari and Ramesh are convicted under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and they all are sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life and to pay the fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the accused-respondents shall further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The personal bonds of the accused-respondents and surety bonds of the sureties are cancelled and the sureties are hereby discharged. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the accused-respondents shall further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The personal bonds of the accused-respondents and surety bonds of the sureties are cancelled and the sureties are hereby discharged. Chief Judicial Magistrate Pilibhit is hereby directed to take necessary steps for sending the accused-respondents to jail to serve out to sentence. Office to return trial court record along with copy of this judgment expeditiously. .