Judgment A.N.JINDAL, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.9.1997 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which, accused Harnam Dass (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC) and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, under Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Appellant-Harnam Dass, a resident of Ferozepur was running an electronic shop. His son Harmanjit Singh had died in an accident, but the appellant was suspecting that Vijay Kumar and Krishan Kumar had a hand in it and they had projected the homicidal death of Harmanjit Singh as an accident. 3. In nutshell, the facts as unfolded by the prosecution during the trial are that on 30.4.1995 at about 10.15 a.m., Amrik Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) was talking with his friend Yadwinder Singh at Hindu Girls School. In the meantime, Krishan Kumar along with Vijay Kumar (both deceased) came on a scooter from the side of Bansi Gate; Krishan Kumar was driving the scooter, whereas, Vijay Kumar was sitting on pillion seat. On seeing theirs, the appellant came down from his shop with his 303 bore rifle (issued to him by the Government) and exhorted the feceased to stop. At this, Krishan Kumar stopped the scooter by placing his feet on the ground, but remained sitting on the driver seat, whereas, Vijay Kumar alighted from the scooter. The appellant while challenging them that they had killed his son fired two shots; one at Vijay Kumar and the other at Krishan Kumar. Resultantly, both fell down and expired at the spot. Then Amrik Singh, brother of Vijay Kumar (deceased) after deputing Yadwinder Singh to take care of the dead bodies went to the Police Station and lodged the report FIR No. Ex. PM/2, which was recorded by Sub Inspector Bakhshish Singh. Resultantly, both fell down and expired at the spot. Then Amrik Singh, brother of Vijay Kumar (deceased) after deputing Yadwinder Singh to take care of the dead bodies went to the Police Station and lodged the report FIR No. Ex. PM/2, which was recorded by Sub Inspector Bakhshish Singh. Sub Inspector Bakhshish Singh reached the place of occurrence, prepared the Inquest Reports, dispatched the dead bodies for post mortem examination and lifted the blood stained earth from two places, which was converted into two separate sealed parcels. He also lifted two empty cartridges from the spot and took them into possession vide memo Ex. PN. He also took into possession a scooter, a pair of V-shape chappels and goggles vide memo EX.PR and prepared the rough site plan Ex.PL. Appellant was arrested on 1.5.1995 and the rifle Ex. P1 along with 48 cartridges were also taken into possession. 4. On completion of the investigation, the challan against the appellant was presented in the Court. On commitment of the Court, the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur took cognizance and framed charge under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. On commencement of trial, the prosecution examined Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW1), who conducted autopsy on the body of Vijay Kumar and observed as under : "1. Lacerated punctured wound with inverted margins size 2-1/2 cms x 2 cms having a collar of abrasion on the lateral margin of the wound, which appeared like a tattooing mark, situated on right side of chest, 5 cms above the right nipple and 4 cms from mid line. On dissection, the wound was going deep through anterior chest wall lacerating the right pleurae, right lung and further lacerating the posterior chest wall appeared as a lacerated wound, size 6 cms x 4 cms with averted margins on lateral border of right scapula on its middle. Chest cavity was full of clotted blood." In his opinion, the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage and the injuries were result of fire arm and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He proved the autopsy report Ex.PA. 6. On the same day, P.W.1 Dr. Ramesh Kumar also conducted autopsy on the body of Krishan Kumar and observed as under :- "1. He proved the autopsy report Ex.PA. 6. On the same day, P.W.1 Dr. Ramesh Kumar also conducted autopsy on the body of Krishan Kumar and observed as under :- "1. Lacerated punctured wound 2 cms x 1-1/2 cms on lateral side of right arm on its middle with inverted margins, having a collar of abrasion on the margin of the wound. On Dissection, the wound was going deep through skin, muscle, underlying bone was fractured, further lacerating the muscle and skin appeared as a lacerated wound with averted margins, size 2-1/2 cms x 2-1/2h cms on medial side of right arm on its middle, clotted blood was present. 2. Lacerated punctured wound 3 cms x 3 cms in size with, inverted margins on the right side of chest, 8 cms lateral to right nipple and at the level of nipple. On dissection, the wound was going deep through anterior chest wall, lacerating the right pleurae and right lung, further lacerating the posterior chest wall appeared as a lacerated wound with averted margins size 3-1/2 cms x 3-1/2 cms on lateral border of right scapula on its lower part, clotted, blood was present in chest cavity." In his opinion, the injuries suffered by Krishan Kumar were the result of fire arm and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He proved the autopsy report Ex.PD. 7. Sunder Singh (P.W.2) is the drafts man, who prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PG. Assistant Sub Inspector Des Raj (P.W.3) has deposed about the motive. He proved about the making of the entry in the DDR about the injuries suffered by Harmanjit Singh on 28.1.1995. Constable Satinderpal Singh (.PW.4) deposed that on 5.10.1991, under the orders of Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur he had issued one rifle bearing butt No. 73 mark 7.62 Bolt No. 18-6281 along with 50 live cartridges of 7.62 bore to the appellant vide entry Ex.P1. LC Swaran Singh (P.W.5) and Constable Gulzar Singh (P.W.6) are the formal witnesses. Amrik Singh Bedi (P.W.7) complainant and Yadwinder Singh (P.W.8) are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Rajan Bhandari (P.W.9) is the witness to the recovery memo Ex.PN, vide which two empty cartridges were taken into possession. Sub Inspector Bakhshish Singh (P.W.10) is the Investigating Officer. 8. LC Swaran Singh (P.W.5) and Constable Gulzar Singh (P.W.6) are the formal witnesses. Amrik Singh Bedi (P.W.7) complainant and Yadwinder Singh (P.W.8) are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Rajan Bhandari (P.W.9) is the witness to the recovery memo Ex.PN, vide which two empty cartridges were taken into possession. Sub Inspector Bakhshish Singh (P.W.10) is the Investigating Officer. 8. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case and took the following defence : "I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated on suspicion as the occurrence took place near my house and shop, Police arrested me on the day of occurrence and detained me in the police station and on 1.5.1995 the police gave we beating and got my signatures on booklet and some papers. Next day, I was produced before the Court of llaga magistrate and was medico legally examined by the order of the Court and injuries caused by the police were found on my person." In his defence, he examined Dr. M.M.S. Dhillon (DW1) and HC Jaswant Singh (DW2). On scrutiny, the Trial Court while holding the "appellant guilty of committing murder of Vijay Kumar and Krishan Kumar, sentenced him accordingly. 9 While projecting the receipt of the First Information Report by the Ilaga Magistrate at 4.00 p.m., it has been vehemently urged that there is delay in lodging the FIR and the FIR is ante-timed. While scanning the evidence as a whole, nothing substantive has been found in this contention, raised by the counsel for the appellant. The occurrence took place at 10.40 a.m. and the FIR was got recorded by the complainant on the same day, within one and half hour i.e. 11.50 a.m. The statement of the complainant Ex. PM consists of two pages, the recording of which, in all human probabilities could consume half an hour or so. Sub Inspector Bakhshish Singh also took some time in sending the same to the Police Station, on the basis of which FIR EX. PM/2 was recorded at 11.40 a.m. The deceased was also sent to the Hospital. The complainant had no reason to implicate the appellant after leaving the real culprits. It was a broad day light when the murders were committed. Therefore, the question of mistaken identity did not arise. PM/2 was recorded at 11.40 a.m. The deceased was also sent to the Hospital. The complainant had no reason to implicate the appellant after leaving the real culprits. It was a broad day light when the murders were committed. Therefore, the question of mistaken identity did not arise. Not much time was consumed in making application Ex.PM before Sub Inspector Bakhshish Singh. The contention that special report to file Ilaqa Magistrate was delayed as it reached to him at 4 p.m. i.e. after about five hours of the registration of the FIR, is also not sustainable as the Magistrate may not be available at his house or he might have come later or he might be busy with some other work. Therefore, such minor delay could not be shouldered upon the prosecution and projected against it by saying that some deliberation might have occurred during this period. It is settled ending the special report to the Magistrate is of no consequence by now that where eye-witnesses have fully supported the case and the evidence is consistent with the medical evidence, then the minor delay in sending the special report to the Magistrate is of no consequence. 10. As regards the other argument that stomach of moth the deceased were empty and it indicates that it was a blind murder having taken place at about 6.00 a.m. as they could not be expected to have eaten nothing upto 10 or 10.15 a.m. Having pondered over the arguments, we are not swayed by it as in the morning, especially on Sundays, people do not take heavy diet and consume tea only. Sometimes, they are busy with their work and do not find time to take some solid food. It was not too late, but 10 or 11 a.m. and nothing has come on record to confront that they had taken food in the morning. Thus, no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution from the mere fact that stomach of both the deceased were found empty. Further more, the doctor has opined that there was gap of 10-12 hours between the death and post mortem, therefore, the doctor is not certain that the death took place at 6.00 a.m. So, from the evidence on record, the possibility of death having taken place at 10.15 a.m. cannot be ruled out. 11. Further more, the doctor has opined that there was gap of 10-12 hours between the death and post mortem, therefore, the doctor is not certain that the death took place at 6.00 a.m. So, from the evidence on record, the possibility of death having taken place at 10.15 a.m. cannot be ruled out. 11. As urged by the counsel for the appellant, witnesses examined in the case cannot be dubbed as chance witnesses. In a town like Ferozepur, business men shopkeepers feeling relieved from the weeks hustle and bustle sometimes collect in the chowks to revive their relations. Mere fact that the complainant Amrik Singh (P.W.7) was brother of Vijay Kumar (deceased) and Yadwinder Singh (P.W.8) was his friend is hardly sufficient to hold them interested witnesses. No stigma could be imposed on their testimonies for their relationship as such Yadwinder Singh (PW8) is an independent eye- witness. Their testimonies are very straight forward and consistent on material points. The lengthy cross-examination conducted over them proved futile to challenge their veracity. Nothing could be elicited, so as to discard their testimonies by dubbing them as chance witnesses. Amrik Singh (P.W.7) deposed that on 30.4.1995 at about 10.15 a.m., he was present in the chowk of Hindu Girls High School, Ferozepur and Yadwinder Singh (PW8) had come there to enquire about cement. The purchase of cement also proves this fact that he so needed. Both, the witnesses have narrated the occurrence in all minute details. Both of them described, as to how the appellant fired at both the deceased and the ocular version given by these two witnesses fits in with the medical evidence. The occurrence took place in a thickly populated area, is also a circumstance, adding to the probability of the presence of witnesses at the spot. The argument that no other witness from the locality was examined is also without any merit. The prosecution is dominus litis of the case. It is well settled, law that quality of the evidence is to be weighed and not its quantity. Yadwinder Singh (PW8) is a public witness, who is not related to any of the deceased, though he is known to the complainant. The prosecution has also to choose its witness amongst many, after considering as to whether he/she will stand by the oath and will dare to bring the truth to the fore. Yadwinder Singh (PW8) is a public witness, who is not related to any of the deceased, though he is known to the complainant. The prosecution has also to choose its witness amongst many, after considering as to whether he/she will stand by the oath and will dare to bring the truth to the fore. In the present days, no-one likes to be a par, of police proceedings, in any will stand by the oath and will dare to bring the truth to the fore manner, especially in murder cases, where independent persons always have an apprehension of developing enmity with the accused persons. 12. Further it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that one Baldev Singh had been joined in the investigation with regard to the death of the son of the appellant but he was not examined. Thus, motive to cause death of Vijay Kumar and Krishan Kumar is missing. It is also contended that no case was registered against aforesaid Baldev Singh and no evidence was produced to prove that son of the appellant had relations with Vijay Kumar (deceased). All the way since the son of the appellant had died and none was challaned for his murder, therefore, there may be suspicion in the mind of the appellant that the deceased had murdered his son. Nevertheless. in cases like the present one, where direct consistent evidence is available against the appellant; the motive part even if remains unproved becomes insignificant. The complainant and Yadwinder Singh (PW8) are the eye witnesses of the occurrence and it has come on record that the appellant had suspicion that the deceased persons had killed his son Harmanjit Singh and the incident was shown to be an accident and, thus, in the fit of revenge, he intercepted the deceased persons and fired shots at them, which resulted in their death. The argument that the appellant had not been issued any rifle by the Government is without basis as Constable Satinderpal Singh (P.W.4) brought the register regarding issuance of arms and ammunition, which has entry Ex. PJ regarding issuing a rifle to the appellant, bearing butt No. 73, mark 7.62 Bolt No. B-6281 along with 50 live cartridges of 7.62, for emergency self protection. 13. PJ regarding issuing a rifle to the appellant, bearing butt No. 73, mark 7.62 Bolt No. B-6281 along with 50 live cartridges of 7.62, for emergency self protection. 13. The rifle and empty cartridges were also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh and the Deputy Director (Ballistics) vide his report Ex.PX opined that empty cases marked C-1 and C-2 have been fired from 7.62 mm bolt action rifle No.13-6281, which belonged to the appellant. 14. Consequently, the inevitable conclusion, which can be drawn from the scrutiny of the evidence, led by the prosecution on the record, is that the Trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty of the offences, punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. We do not find any ground to differ with the aforesaid finding, based on good reasons and appreciation of the evidence in right perspective. For the foregoing reasons, we see no reason to upset the impugned judgment of conviction. The sentence awarded also commensurate with the offence committed. Hence, the appeal being without merit, is hereby dismissed.