JUDGMENT Hon’ble K.K. Misra, J.—This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.3.1981 passed by Sri V.N. Pandey, the then VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 1979 whereby he has convicted the appellants Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Sachidanand alias Nanha, Ramesh Chandra (Ramesh Kumar) alias Lalla under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. 2. The facts narrated in the written report (Ext. Ka-1) are that on 22.5.75 complainant Madho Shyam Shukla’s brother-in-law Ajay Kumar r/o village Khande Deo, P.S. Banthra, District-Lucknow was murdered by accused Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Sachidanand, who are also resident of village-Khande Deo, P.S. Banthra, District Lucknow and that case was being tried in Court at the time of occurrence in the present case. It was alleged that on 12/13.2.1979 was the date fixed in that case. The case was adjourned to 21.2.1979. Complainant Madho Shyam Shukla (P.W. 1) and his friends Suresh Pandey (deceased), Ram Chandra Misra and Bilas Modhey (P.W. 3) were doing pairvy from the side of the deceased Ajay Kumar while accused Ramesh Kumar alias Lalla and others were doing pairvi from the side of the accused Santosh Kumar, Sachidanand and they were threatening the complainant, pairokar and witnesses not to do pairvi so that the accused may be acquitted. On 12.2.1979, the date fixed in the case, the accused had threatened the complainant and his friend in presence of the witnesses that if they would be seen in the Court on the next date, they would be killed. Despite this, the complainant etc. also came in the Court on 13.2.1979, when in the evening at the time of leaving the Court accused Santosh asked that the complainant etc. had not obeyed the accused and they would not get opportunity to see the next date fixed in the case. It was further alleged that with intent to take revenge due to the above reason, on 20.2.1979 the accused persons fired at the complainant and his companions near the Union Hall in Lucknow University to kill them but due to luck they escaped their lives by running away from the spot. 3. It was further alleged that with intent to take revenge due to the above reason, on 20.2.1979 the accused persons fired at the complainant and his companions near the Union Hall in Lucknow University to kill them but due to luck they escaped their lives by running away from the spot. 3. It was further mentioned that on 22.2.1979 complainant Madho Shyam Shukla went to Lucknow University to enquire about his examination result; that near the Union Hall he met his friend deceased Suresh Pandey, Bilas Modhey, Ram Chandra Misra and Ranjeet Bahadur Srivastava and they all went to the Registrar Office; as there was crowd, they went to Examination Section but as the result could not be known they returned to their houses; that at about 2.00 p.m. as soon as they reached outside the gate No. 1 at some distance all the above named persons came on Java (Yazdi) Motor-cycle from the side of Union Hall; the motor-cycle was being driven by accused Sachidanand while accused Ramesh armed with a double barrel gun was sitting on the motor-cycle behind accused Sachidanand and accused Santosh Kumar armed with a single barrel gun was sitting behind the accused Ramesh; when the complainant and his companions were at a distance of about 15-20 steps from outside gate No. 1 accused Sachidanand stopped the motor-cycle; accused Ramesh and Santosh Kumar got down while accused Sachidanand remained seated on the motor-cycle; they all started firing with revolver and guns on which complainant Madho Shyam Shukla and his companions ran towards Art Faculty inside the gate while deceased Suresh Pandey started running towards the Union Hall after getting down from the road towards east; as there was crowd in the Art Faculty, the accused persons chased deceased Suresh Pandey frequently firing at him which hit on his arm, leg and chest etc. on which he fell down in a pit near the sports store; the complainant and others returned back and raised the alarm on which several other students from all sides reached the spot and all the three accused persons fled away on the motor-cycle towards Union Hall to the west; that the number of the motor-cycle could not be seen as a jacket was alleged to have been hanging on it. Thereafter the injured Suresh Pandey was taken to Medical College in a car by Raj Kumar Jaiswal and others but he succumbed to his firearm injuries in the way. 4. Complainant Madho Shyam Shukla wrote the written report (Ext. Ka-1) in the Art Faculty; went to police station Hasanganj where he submitted the written report on the basis of which the FIR (Ext. Ka-10) was lodged as Crime No. 153 at about 14.45 the same day under Section 307, IPC naming all the three accused persons at G.D. Report No. 35, true copy of which is Ext. Ka-11. After the death of Suresh Pandey, the case was converted into Section 302, IPC from Section 307, I.P.C., an entry of which was made at G.D. Report No. 37 at about 15.05 the same day, true copy of which is Ext. Ka-12. The case was partly investigated by S.I.K.K Singh who inspected the spot; recorded the statements of the witnesses and conducted the Panchayatnama on the dead-body of Suresh Pandey sealed the dead-body for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. J.B. Saxena the same day at about 5.45 P.M. All the three accused persons surrendered in Court. Thereafter the investigation was handed over to S.I. P.N. Pandey who after completing the investigation of the case, submitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-9) on 4.4.1979 against all the three accused persons. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by C.J.M., Lucknow vide order dated 17.5.1979. Learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow vide order dated 22.6.1979 transferred the case to the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow for trial. Being part-heard case of Sri V.N. Pandey, the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, the case was again transferred to the Court of VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, the Presiding Officer of which Court was now Sri V.N. Pandey. 6. Being part-heard case of Sri V.N. Pandey, the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, the case was again transferred to the Court of VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, the Presiding Officer of which Court was now Sri V.N. Pandey. 6. The accused persons denied all the prosecution allegations and stated to have been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity with the complainant, his friends as well as with deceased Suresh Pandey as they were all of one party; accused Santosh and Sachidanand have further stated that the deceased himself was a notorious and pre-convict and he had enmity with many other persons and there were many cases pending against him at the time of his murder; accused Sachidanand has stated that at the time and date of this occurrence, he was in his office Bhumi Vikas Bank at Mal Avenue Road, Lucknow where he was posted as Accountant while accused Ramesh Kumar has stated that he was also in his office Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow where he was posted as Clerk and his duty was from 10 to 5.00 p.m. and they did not commit the murder of Suresh Pandey. They have been charged under Section 302/34, I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses, out of which PWs. 1 to 3 are the eye and fact witnesses while PWs. 4 to 9 are formal witnesses. 8. They have been charged under Section 302/34, I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses, out of which PWs. 1 to 3 are the eye and fact witnesses while PWs. 4 to 9 are formal witnesses. 8. P.W. 1 Madho Shyam Shukla, the complainant of the case and friend of the deceased Suresh Pandey has stated that he knew all the three accused persons from before; that accused Santosh Kumar and Sachidanand had committed the murder of the younger brother of his brother in law (Bahnoi) for which the accused were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment; that at the time of occurrence of the present case that case was being tried in Court and the complainant, Ram Chandra Misra, Vilas Modhey and deceased Suresh Pandey were coming in Court in pairvy from the side of his brother in law while accused Ramesh alias Lalla and others were threatening the complainant and his companions not to do pairvy; that on 13.2.1979 again they came to Court and in the evening at the time of leaving the Court, accused Santosh asked that they did not obey him, they would not get opportunity to see the next date; on 20.2.1979 accused Ramesh alongwith 1-2 other persons were seen by the complainant in Lucknow University and they fired at him but they escaped and ran away, 21.2.1979 was fixed the date in Court and on 22.2.1979 complainant went to university to enquire of his examination result where near Union Hall, he met deceased Suresh Pandey, Ram Chandra Misra, Vilas Modhey and Ranjeet Bahadur and they all went towards Registrar Office but the result could not be known; they were returning from gate No. 1 at about 2 p.m. and they were at some distance outside the gate, they saw all the accused persons coming on a Java (Yazdi) Motor-cycle which was being driven by accused Sachidanand alias Nanha; accused Ramesh armed with double barrel gun and accused Santosh armed with single barrel gun, were sitting behind accused Sachidanand who was armed with revolver. This witness has also stated as to how the accused stopped the motor cycle and started firing at him and others who ran away towards Art Faculty and deceased Suresh Pandey towards Union Hall through the east of the road who was chased and fired by the accused which hit on his left arm and left thigh on which he fell down in a pit near Sports store; thereafter accused Ramesh fired on the back of the deceased; that all the accused fled away towards Mankameshwar Temple through the Union Hall on the motor-cycle which number could not be seen as a jacket was hanging on it; the injured was taken to Medical College but he succumbed to his firearm injuries in the way. He has proved Ext. Ka-1 and Ka-2 written report prepared by him and Panchayatnama which bears his signature also. 9. P.W. 2 Ram Chandra Misra, friend of the complainant, and deceased Suresh Pandey has deposed that he knew complainant Madho Shyam Shukla, deceased Suresh Pandey and also the brother-in-law of Madho Shyam Shukla whose brother Ajay Kumar had been murdered. This witness stated that Madho Shyam Shukla had told him that Ajay’s murder had been committed by accused Santosh Kumar and Sachidanand; that the case was being tried in the Court at the time of occurrence in the present case and he had attended the Court on 12/13.2.1979 on which date 21.2.1989 was fixed in the case. P.W. 2 Ram Chandra Misra has supported and corroborated statement of P.W. 1 Madho Shyam Shukla and the case of the prosecution as to how the accused threatened the witnesses of the prosecution not to do pairvi in that case; as to how on 20.2.1979 the firing was made by the accused on the complainant and his companion; thereafter on 22.2.1979 all the accused persons armed with guns and revolver came on a motor-cycle in Lucknow University and committed the murder of Suresh Pandey and thereafter the accused person run away towards west of the bridge. This witness stated that inquest report (Ext. Ka-2) to have been signed by him. 10. This witness stated that inquest report (Ext. Ka-2) to have been signed by him. 10. P.W. 3 Vilas Modhey supported and corroborated the statement of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 regarding the murder case of Ajay Kumar in which both the accused had been convicted and sentenced; the firing by the accused on 20.2.1979 on the complainant and his friends and the firing on 22.2.1979 at deceased Suresh Pandey as a result of which he died in the way to Medical College on the date of occurrence at about 2.00 P.M. in Lucknow University. 11. P.W. 4 Dr. J. B. Saxena stated to have conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Suresh Pandey in Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow on 20.2.1979 at about 5.45 p.m. The dead-body was identified by constable Tasawar Husain before him. The deceased was aged about 22 years and duration of the death was about 4.00 hour. 12. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead-body of the deceased. 1. Four gun shot wounds of entry with lacerated and inverted margins on the outer part of left shoulder in an area 9 cm. x 8 cm. each wound was 1-1/2 cm. x 1-1/2 cm. No scorching or tattooing was present. 2. Four gun shot wounds of exit with lacerated and inverted margins 13 cm. x 7 cm. on the back of left arm 4 cm. below elbow. The three wounds were of 2 cm. x 2 cm. and the fourth was of 10 cm. x 5 cm. Wounds No. 1 and 2 were bone deep with multiple fracture of left humerus bone underneath. 3. Gun shot wound of entry with lacerated and inverted margins 2 cm. x 2 cm. cavity deep with scorching or tattooing in an area 8 cm. x 7-1/2 cm. on the left scapular region 8 cm. from mid line. 4. Multiple wound of exit G.S. in an area 17 cm x 11 cm with everted and lacerated margins on the right side of chest and abdomen. 5. 3 gun shot wounds of entry with inverted and lacerated margins in an area of 8 cm. x 6 cm. outer side of left thing. 9 cm below left iliac chest; the wounds were skin deep. One wound was 6 cm. x 13 cm. x skin deep and the other two above were 1 cm. x 1 cm. x skin deep. No scorching or tattooing was present. x 6 cm. outer side of left thing. 9 cm below left iliac chest; the wounds were skin deep. One wound was 6 cm. x 13 cm. x skin deep and the other two above were 1 cm. x 1 cm. x skin deep. No scorching or tattooing was present. 13. Three pieces of wadding were recovered from the left pleural cavity in which 2 ounces of dark clotted and fluid blood was present. Six shots were recovered from the wound near injury No. 4 which were sealed and sent to Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow. He also found blood stains present on the dead-body of the deceased. Rigor mortis had started, humerus bone of left hand was found broken at several places; pericardium was lacerated; right lung was torn out through and through from the lower side while left lung was torn through and through from upper side, heart was lacerated through and through and it was empty. In the opinion of this witness, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of fire arm injuries; injury No. 2 could have been result of injury No. 1 and that all the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Suresh Pandey. He proved post-mortem examination report (Ext. Ka-3), prepared at the time of post-mortem. 14. P.W. 5 K.K. Singh, Sub-Inspector has stated to have partly conducted the investigation of the case; that the case was registered on 22.2.1979 in his presence at the Police Station on the basis of written report submitted by complainant Madho Shyam Shukla (P.W.1), he recorded his statement and rushed to Lucknow University, inspected the spot at the instance of the complainant prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-4) of the place of the occurrence, took in possession blood stained earth, green and dry leaves of trees as well as the plain earth from the spot, sealed the same and prepared its memo (Ext. Ka-5); recorded the statements of the witnesses of the memo (Ext. Ka-5); that while he was going to Medical College he received death memo of the deceased (Ext. Ka-1) in the way; conducted Panchayatnama of the dead-body after appointing Panches (Ext. Ka-2); prepared challan lash, Naksha Lash (Ext. Ka-6 and Ext. Ka-7); memo for taking the clothes of the deceased (Ext. Ka-8). Ka-5); that while he was going to Medical College he received death memo of the deceased (Ext. Ka-1) in the way; conducted Panchayatnama of the dead-body after appointing Panches (Ext. Ka-2); prepared challan lash, Naksha Lash (Ext. Ka-6 and Ext. Ka-7); memo for taking the clothes of the deceased (Ext. Ka-8). He handed over the dead-body in the custody of Constable Tasawwar Husain for getting the post-mortem conducted; recorded the statements of the witnesses of Panchayatnama, recorded the statements of Ram Chandra Misra, Vilas Modhey and Ranjeet Bahadur Srivastava who were named in the F.I.R., he made search of the accused but could not trace them. 15. Thereafter investigation was handed over to Pashpat Nath Pandey S.I. (P.W. 6) who stated to have started the investigation from 23.2.1979 and has submitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-9) against all the three accused persons on 4.4.1979. He also proved chik report (Ext.Ka-10) to be in the hand-writing of Constable Suraj Lal Shukla and also registration of the case in G.D. (Ext. Ka-11) at serial No. 35 at 2.45 on 22.2.1979 and also G.D. (Ext. Ka-12), converting the case from Section 307, I.P.C. to Section 302, I.P.C. to be in the hand-writing of Constable Suraj Lal Shukla. He also proved Ext. Ka-13 the endorsement on the order, copy obtained from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, for attachment of the properties of the accused. 16. P.W.7 P. Rai, Ballistic Expert, Forensic Science Laboratory, U.P. Lucknow has stated that in presence of Dr. K.K. Singhal on 8.8.1980 he conducted an experiment with a single barrel gun to find out the result of hard and loose contact firing; he filed and proved the target (Exts. 2 and 3); stated that photographs of the target were taken by the photographer in his presence; he proved and filed the negatives of the photographs (Ext- 4); its copies were marked Exts. 5 and 6. 17. P.W.8 Dr. K.K. Singhal, Assistant Medico Legal Expert was examined to prove that injury No. 3 on the dead-body of the deceased could be the result of contact firing with the body. He stated that the Ballistics Expert P. Rai (P.W.7); on his instructions had conducted two experiments; the original targets (Exts. 2) and 3) were signed by him as well as by the expert. He stated that the Ballistics Expert P. Rai (P.W.7); on his instructions had conducted two experiments; the original targets (Exts. 2) and 3) were signed by him as well as by the expert. According to him, in view of the experiment conducted by the Ballistics Expert in his presence, the resuIt obtained on the target and the circumstances of the case in the case of contact; whether it may be loose contact or hard contact, blackening and tattooing was possible around the wound as was in the present case around injury No. 3 of the deceased, as per post-mortem report on the record. 18. P.W.9 Constable Ram Naresh Assistant, Sadar Malkhana Lucknow has deposed that four sealed bundles containing blood stained and simple earth, clothes etc. were deposited in the Malkhana by Constable Hashmat Ali on 31.3.1979 and three sealed bundles on 2.1.1980. He filed and proved true copy of the register of Malkhana (Ext. Ka-15). 19. Besides the aforesaid oral evidence, the prosecution has filed affidavit of formal witness Constable Bisram (Ext. Ka-14) who swore on oath that on 6.3.1979 he was Constable Clerk at P.S. Hasanganj and on that date, vide entry in the G.D. No. 37, at 13.30 hours, he received Panchayatnama, post-mortem report, pellets and wads in a sealed envelope. He proved the G.D. Entry and sealed envelope. 20. In defence, the accused persons have examined D.W.1 Sri Prakash Verma, Clerk in the Tax Department, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, D.W.2 Mazhar Husain Accounts Clerk in the Land Development Bank, Mall Avenue Road, Lucknow and D.W. 3 S.N. Tewari, Draftsman. D.W. 1 Sri Prakash Verma has stated that he had brought with him the Attendance Register from January 1979 to December 1979 of the Tax Department Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow; accused Ramesh Kumar was working with this witness in the said Department of Nagar Mahapalika as Clerk on 22.2.1979. The office hours were from 10 a.m. to 5. p.m. As per entry in the said Register accused Ramesh Kumar was stated to have remained present on his duty on from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and he had signed his attendance in the Attendance Register; he has proved his signatures. The office hours were from 10 a.m. to 5. p.m. As per entry in the said Register accused Ramesh Kumar was stated to have remained present on his duty on from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and he had signed his attendance in the Attendance Register; he has proved his signatures. This witness has further stated that the office time from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. was fixed for public dealing and tax collection; during this period there was no lunch hour nor any official could leave the office without permission. This Register (Ext.-6) has been proved by his witness. This witness has also proved the entry at serial No. 27 of the month of February 27, 1979 and the signature of accused Ramesh over the said register. 21. D.W. 2 Mazhar Husain has stated that accused Sachidanand was working with this witness as Accounts Clerk in the office of Land Development Bank, 10 Mall Avenue, Lucknow. This witness had also brought the Attendance Register of Accounts Section (III) from January 1978 to June 1979 which was stated to have been maintained regularly. This witness stated that every official used to sign this register and Section In-charge used to put his signature daily thereon. The office hours were from 10.00 a.m. to 5 p.m. Accused Sachidanand attended the office on 22.2.1979 and his signature was present in the register. Accused Sachidanand remained on his duty for the whole day. Register (Ext.-7) was filed by the witness and :the signature of accused Sachidanand at serial No. 2 was proved as Ext. Kha-2. 22. D.W. 3 S.N. Tewari filed a site plan prepared by him on scale which is Ext. Kha-3, showing the relevant places and the place of incident within the Lucknow University campus, where the deceased is alleged to have been murdered and has also stated about detailed measurement. The map was stated to have been prepared on the scale of 1 inch = 40 ft. Besides this, the accused persons have also filed two documents. They are true copy of the chick report dated 20.2.1979 recorded at 16.30 hours in case Crime No. 145-A under Section 307, I.P.C. at P.S. Hazratganj, Lucknow and the copy of the charge-sheet dated 11.3.1979 in the said case. 23. Besides this, the accused persons have also filed two documents. They are true copy of the chick report dated 20.2.1979 recorded at 16.30 hours in case Crime No. 145-A under Section 307, I.P.C. at P.S. Hazratganj, Lucknow and the copy of the charge-sheet dated 11.3.1979 in the said case. 23. After hearing the learned Counsel for the accused, learned State Counsel and scrutinising the evidence on the record the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 24. We have heard Sri O.P. Srivastava, Sri Arun Sinha, Sri Jyotindra Mishra, Sri Manish Bajpai learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri Satya Bhushan Verma, learned A.G.A., for the State, perused the judgement of the trial Court and gone through the evidence on the record of the lower Court. 25. The crux of the matter, argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants, is as follows : 1. (a) The witnesses are chance witnesses. (b) The witnesses are inimical. (c) The reasons disclosed by them in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. recorded by the Investigating Officer to reach the place of occurrence have been disputed and there is contradictory statement with regard to them. (d) If the accused were armed with guns and revolvers it was not natural for the witnesses to have come forward to see the incident or hear the conversation from a distance of 20-25 paces only. 2. Motive, as suggested by the prosecution, is completely discarded. 3. There is contradiction between the eye-witnesses and medical account. 4. So far as appellant No. 3 Ramesh is concerned he was alleged to have fired from close range (Sata Kar Mara). 5. No recovery of blood from the place of occurrence. 6. The site plan does not support the prosecution version. 7. The deceased had received one injury on the left shoulder and on left thigh and the Investigating Officer has shown firing from right side. 8. Anti-timed F.I.R. 26. As regards the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the F.I.R. is anti-timed, it may be mentioned that the occurrence took place on 22.2.1979 at about 2. p.m. This was established from oral testimony of the eye-witnesses and documents on the record that soon after the incident deceased Suresh Pandey was carried over to Medical College Lucknow where he was declared dead at 2.30 p.m. on 22.2.1979, vide death memo (Ext. 1). The F.I.R. (Ext. p.m. This was established from oral testimony of the eye-witnesses and documents on the record that soon after the incident deceased Suresh Pandey was carried over to Medical College Lucknow where he was declared dead at 2.30 p.m. on 22.2.1979, vide death memo (Ext. 1). The F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) was lodged the same day at 2.45 p.m.; chick report was prepared the same day and time on the basis of which an entry was made at G.D. Report No. 1; the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station Hasanganj was about 2-1/2 Kms. The death memo was received at P.S. Chowk at 3 P.M. from where it was received at P.S. Hasanganj at about 3.45 P.M. and the case was converted from Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 302, I.P.C. vide entry in the G.D. (Ext. Ka-12) at 3.45 P.M. Panchayatnama on the dead-body of the deceased was conducted at 5.30 P.M. and post-mortem examination was done the same day at 5.45 p.m. Apart from the statements of the eye-witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W. 4 Dr. J.B. Saxena, who conducted the post-mortem, has stated that in his opinion the duration of death was about 4 hours at the time of post-mortem examination. This all establishes that deceased Suresh Pandey was murdered on 22.2.1979 at about 2 p.m. and the F.I.R. was promptly lodged by P.W.1 Madho Shyam Shukla at the earliest possible opportunity within 45 minutes of the occurrence, being the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station only 2-1/2 Kms. that too giving out natural and detailed version of the incident. It was not anti timed. 27. As regards the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that there was no recovery of blood from the place of occurrence and the site plan does not support the prosecution version, it is established from the oral as well as documentary evidence that the place of occurrence was within the campus of Lucknow University near gate No. 1. Apart from the oral testimony of the eye-witnesses there is site plan (Ext. Ka-4) on record in which the place of occurrence has been indicated with specification. Apart from the oral testimony of the eye-witnesses there is site plan (Ext. Ka-4) on record in which the place of occurrence has been indicated with specification. There might be little variation with regard to the assessment of the distance by the Investigating Officer in the site plan, by the witnesses or by D.W. 3, who also prepared site plan on scale, filed by the defence in the case. The Investigating Officer had taken blood stained and simple earth from the place of occurrence vide memo (Ext. Ka-5). Thus from the evidence on the record it is fully established that recovery of blood by the Investigating Officer was from the place of occurrence. The site plan fully supports the prosecution version. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant on this point has no force. 28. The witnesses have given cogent reasons for their presence on the spot at the time of incident as result of one of the witnesses was withheld; they had gone to inquire about it in Lucknow University. In the absence of any evidence in rebuttal their testimony could not be disbelieved or brushed aside. The defence has not adduced any evidence to show that they were not students and their result was not withheld as stated by them. 29. All the three witnesses have denied the existence of any obstruction in their vision from the back of pillar of gate No. 1 to the ditch. It has also been established that any one, standing at a distance of 20-25 steps from the ditch on the road, could hear the conversation between the accused and the deceased. On this point, learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the case law Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 5039 which is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 30. As regards the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that if the accused were armed with guns and revolvers it was not natural for the witnesses to have come forward to see the incident or hear the conversation from a distance of 20-25 paces only, the witnesses have given reasons for it by stating that a mob was collected by that time and they all had come forward protesting the murder raising alarm. If the mob had collected there, the witnesses might have gained some courage, even if they were unarmed, and as one of the friends was being murdered they certainly could have protested at least by raising alarm which they did in the most natural manner. Therefore, the testimony of the eye-witnesses that they did see the entire incident with their own eyes while standing behind the pillar cannot be disbelieved, rather it is to be accepted being corroborated by each of the witnesses in a natural manner. 31. As regards the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the witnesses are chance witnesses, the witnesses are inimical and the reasons disclosed by them in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. recorded by the I.O. to reach the place of occurrence have been disputed and there are contradictory statements with regard to them, we find that it : is established from the evidence on the record that presence of P.W.1 Madho Shyam Shukla could not be denied at all because he had lodged the F.I.R. at the Police Station soon after the incident at about 2.45 P.M. His presence and the presence of other P.Ws. Ram Chandra Misra and Vilas Modhey can also not be disbelieved because soon after the incident when the I.O. reached the Medical College from the spot, he recorded their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. P.W. 2 Ram Chandra Misra and P.W. 1 Madho Shyam Shukla even signed the Panchayatnama which had been prepared at 5.30 P.M. at the Midical College. 32. The oral testimony of the witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. According to the post-mortem examination report (Ext. Ka-3) in view of the injuries, recorded by the doctor, the deceased had gun shot injuries in his left arm, left thigh and on left scapular region. The injuries were inconsonance with the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses. The size and nature of fire arm injuries and their direction fully support the distance and the direction from where the shots were discharged at the deceased. 33. The injuries were inconsonance with the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses. The size and nature of fire arm injuries and their direction fully support the distance and the direction from where the shots were discharged at the deceased. 33. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that so far as appellant No. 3 Ramesh is concerned he was alleged to have fired from close range (Sata Kar Mara) and thus injury No. 3 could not be contact wound or could not be the result of discharge of a fire-arm from a chose range to the body as in the injury No. 3 there was scorching and tattooing while no such scorching or tattooing was possible in a close range firing, as P.W. 4 Dr. J.B. Saxena has stated, in cross-examination by the defence, that if the shot was fired from the close gunshot by contacting the same to the body there would be no sign of scorching or tattooing as the gases would enter into the wound in a mass. 34. This argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants has no force because to clarify the matter, the prosecution has produced P.W. 7 P. Rai, Ballistics Expert, Forensic Science Laboratory, U.P., Lucknow and P.W. 8 Dr. K.K. Singhal, Assistant Medico Legal Expert, U.P. Government. P.W. 7 P. Rai had conducted experiment on two targets (Exts. 2 and 3) to find out the result of hard and loose contact firing in presence of Dr. K.K. Singhal (P.W. 8). Both the witnesses have stated that in a close firing resulting in contact wound scorching and tattooing is possible. They based their opinion not only on the theory which finds place in the Books but also on the experiments performed by them. 35. The motive suggested by the prosecution has also been fully established. According to the prosecution and as deposed by P.Ws. 1 to 3, Ajai Kumar, younger brother of brother-in-law of P.W. 1 Madho Shyam Shukla had been murdered for which accused Santosh and Sachidanand were implicated as accused. Before the incident in the present case, the case relating to the murder of Ajai Kumar was being tried in the Sessions Court and accused Ramesh, being the friend of the two accused Santosh and Sachidanand, used to come for their pairvi in Court and from the side of Ajai Kjmar, Madho Shyam Shukla, Ram Chandra Misra and Vilas Modhey (P.Ws. 1 to 3) used to come in Pairvi in the Court. On 12.2.79 accused Santosh and Sachidanand said Madho Shyam Shukla that if they would come in pairvi, they would not be saved but even they came to Court in pairvi on 13.2.1979. Thereafter it is said that on 20.2.1979 accused Ramesh and his party fired on the party of Madho Shyam Shukla in Lucknow University Campus near the Union Hall in respect of which a report was lodged at P.S. Hazaratganj, Lucknow. Madho Shyam Shukla and his party men went in Court for pairvi even on 21.2.1979 and the present incident took place on 22.2.1979 in which all the three accused persons are alleged to have committed the murder of Suresh Pandey. 36. It is a fact that Ajai Kumar younger brother of brother-in-law of P.W. 1 Madho Shyam Shukla had been murdered and for that murder accused Santosh and Sachidanand were tried in the Court of Sessions and were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Apart from the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 3 on this point, this fact was admitted by accused Santosh and Sachidanand in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The un-controverted testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3 cannot be disbelieved as they were going to do pairvi of the case to the Sessions Court. 37. This all goes to prove the motive on the part of the accused persons, their planning and opportunity to fulfil their aim by committing the murder of Suresh Pandey in the natural course of events. 38. Further contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the deceased had received one injury on his left shoulder and on left thigh and the Investigating Officer has shown firing from right side. It is a matter of common knowledge that where such a heinous crime was being committed by the appellants, the eye-witnesses must have been frightened and nervous with the result they could not have been in a position to witness the incident so minutely to narrate the correct direction of firing etc. but this cannot affect the prosecution case adversely. 39. Now we shall deal with the defence evidence. Out of the three witnesses D.Ws. 1 to 3, D.W. 3 is a most formal witness as he has prepared the site plan on the instructions of the accused persons and their Counsel. but this cannot affect the prosecution case adversely. 39. Now we shall deal with the defence evidence. Out of the three witnesses D.Ws. 1 to 3, D.W. 3 is a most formal witness as he has prepared the site plan on the instructions of the accused persons and their Counsel. D.W.1 Sri Prakash Verma, Clerk in the Tax Department of Nagar Palika, Lucknow, who had brought the attendance register of accused Ramesh Chand concerning the date i.e. 22.2.1979, has deposed that he was present in the office on that date between 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. in his office. Similarly D.W. 2 Majhar Husain, Accounts Clerk in the Land Development Bank, 10 Mal Avenue, Lucknow had brought the attendance register of accused Sachidanand concerning the date 22.2.1979 and has deposed that the office hours in his office were 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. and Sachidanand, who was working with him as Accounts Clerk, had worked for the whole day on the said date. We may mention that this plea of alibi on the part of the accused persons that as they were present in their offices they could not remain present on the place of occurrence on the alleged date and time of occurrence, was a very weak type of evidence because the distance between the place of occurrence and their office was not more than 5-6 Kms., as per statement of D.W. 2 in his cross-examination, therefore, even if they had come : to attend their offices on 22.2.1979, the time of incident being 2 P.M. they could have spared themselves and participated in the crime on the alleged place and time of occurrence. The statement of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 that no one of their offices could leave. the office without permission could not be believed because sometimes people go without permission and sometimes on false pretext. 40. Alibi is only a rule of evidence recognized in Section 11 of the Evidence Act. The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence at another place. Denial in this case has been rightly rejected by the trial Court as the accused could have reached the spot and in the present case as they were having motor-cycle and the eye-witnesses have assigned the role of shooting to the appellants who pleaded alibi. Denial in this case has been rightly rejected by the trial Court as the accused could have reached the spot and in the present case as they were having motor-cycle and the eye-witnesses have assigned the role of shooting to the appellants who pleaded alibi. There is almost no contradiction in the statements of the eye-witnesses so far as role assigned to the appellants, role of shooting as well as manner of assault is concerned. 41. As argued by learned Counsel for the defence, even if for arguments sake, it is believed that witnesses were chance witnesses and inimical also and the reason as disclosed by them to investigating officer is false, will not help the defence case. 42. The most convincing and glaring feature of the case is that all the witnesses of fact have supported the prosecution version and there has been no inconsistency with regard to the firing, number of shots and role assigned to the appellants. 43. We, after carefully examining the evidence on record, judgment of the trial Court are of the view that it is a planned murder, broad day light incident in the campus of Lucknow University. 44. From the above discussion, we find that the prosecution has fully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court is liable to be maintained. 45. In the result, we dismiss this appeal. The conviction and sentence, recorded by the trial Court against the accused appellants Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Sachidanand alias Nanha and Ramesh’ Chandra (Ramesh Kumar) alias Lalla, are upheld. The appellants are on bail. They shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to them. 46. Let a certified copy of the judgment be sent to the lower Court concerned for reporting compliance within two months. Lower Court record be returned. ————