Judgment Guman Singh, J.-This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the Judgment and order dated 31.05.2005 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khetri district Jhunjhunu, in Sessions Case No. 44 of 2003 whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under : Barkat Ali Under Section 447 IPC 3 months simple imprisonment. Under Section 302 IPC To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-in default to further suffer 1 year additional rigorous imprisonment. Mohammad Iqbal, Kishore Singh, Amar Singh Under Section 447 IPC 3 months simple imprisonment. Under Section 302/34 IPC To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-each, in default to further suffer 1 year additional rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 01.08.2001 (PW. 4) SHO, Khetri, Karan Singh received wireless information from Check-Post-Bawai that one person has been taken to Hospital on account of incident of firing at village Sephra Guwar. On reaching to the Hospital, Surendra s/o Mohan Singh r/o Sephra Guwar was found near the dead body of deceased Sumer Singh. So he recorded ‘Parcha Bayan’ (Exhibit P. 5) of Surendra Singh at 10.15 a.m. wherein Surendra Singh (PW. 7) stated that he had come to the village Sephra Guwar a day before at 8-8.30 in the evening as he wanted to go to the temple of Mansa-Mata to pay obeisance. On that day i.e. 01.08.2001, Sumer Singh s/o Mal Singh had gone to the field for weeding operation of the crop. At about 9 a.m. he came to know that some Muslim fellows had gone towards the field, he along with Mahaveer Singh, Ravi Singh, Sunder Pal Singh and Prahlad went towards the field. They saw Barkat Ali, his nephew, Amar Singh and Kishore Singh running from there. They were told by them that one is already lying dead and they could also be shot dead. Barkat Ali and his nephew had revolvers. In the field Sumer Singh was lying with a gun shot injury at left side of the abdomen. He was taken to Hospital in Tata Sumo (Jeep) where he died. There was a dispute regarding the land and these people were forcibly in possession. Regarding an earlier dispute with them about land, Aziz Kureshi had lodged a report at the Police Station. He was taken to Hospital in Tata Sumo (Jeep) where he died. There was a dispute regarding the land and these people were forcibly in possession. Regarding an earlier dispute with them about land, Aziz Kureshi had lodged a report at the Police Station. On the above report a case under Sections 447, 302 and 34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During the investigation post-mortem of the dead body was conducted, necessary memos were drawn, accused persons were arrested and after collecting necessary evidence the accused appellants were challenged. In due course, the case came up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri. Charges were framed, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. In explanation under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the appellants stated that they were innocent and they were falsely implicated. No witness was however, examined in defence. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and scanned the material produced before us. 4. Death of Sumer Singh was indisputably homicidal in nature. As per Post Mortem Report (Exhibit P. 13) following ante mortem injuries were found on dead body : Injuries, the shirt (brown coloured) and Baniyan (white coloured) on front, left side, on lower half are stained in blood (wet) and both have one hole of size 1.5 x 1 cm, site of hole corresponding to the site of abdominal wound. On the abdomen, on front, on left, on left nipple line, below and near last rib, there is a fire arm wound, 1.5 x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep. The skin at the wound margin have abraded collar, which is wider on left side. Further down, the muscle and peritoneal wall have wound of 1.5 x 1 cm site, muscles stained in liquid blood. Further down, the peritorial cavity is full of liquid, dark red blood. The omentum have a wound of size 2 x 2 cm, involving its whole thickness. In the traverse color, on its front, left side, there is a wound, 5 x 2 cm, involving whole thickness of wail with laceration of blood vessels. There is a wound, 2 x 1.5 cm, on the muscles, line over L., vertebrae body. The bullet is enceded all the body of L, vertebra, and underline membrane and spinal cord lacerated. The bullet removed and preserved. There is a wound, 2 x 1.5 cm, on the muscles, line over L., vertebrae body. The bullet is enceded all the body of L, vertebra, and underline membrane and spinal cord lacerated. The bullet removed and preserved. There is tattooing of the gun powder on palmer surface of left hand and on extensor and flexor surfaces of left fore-arm. Opinion : (1) the abdominal is ante-mortem in nature and produced by a bullet fired from a fire arm. (2) The time since death is within 2 to 6 hours of P.M. Examination. (3) The cause of death is abdominal injuries produced by the bullet, causing haemorrhage shock and death. 5. On reappraisal of the prosecution evidence, it is revealed that the appellants as well as the complainant party belonged to the same village, Shepra Guwar. It is also admitted that there was a long standing dispute regarding the land where the occurrence took place. In the cross-examination of (PW. 2) Mahipal Singh, who is son of the deceased Sumer Singh, a stand has been taken on behalf of accused Barkat Ali and it has been suggested that in fact Barkat had sown ‘Bazra’ in the field and it was he who was engaged in weeding operation of the crop and the deceased wanted to forcibly dispossess him by undertaking weeding operation of the crop to himself . The fact of enmity between the parties is also revealed from the fact that (PW. 2) Mahipal Singh has admitted that (PW. 7) Surendra Singh was prosecuted for the offence of causing out injury on the leg of appellant Amar Singh. This fact also stands admitted by (PW. 7) Surendra Singh. Surendra Singh (PW. 7) is informant in the case who reached to the place of occurrence allegedly when the incident took place and also lifted the deceased to the hospital at Khetri in Tata Sumo which was brought by him in the field and his ‘Parcha Bayan’ (Exhibit P. 5) was recorded by the S.H.O. Khetri at the hospital within one and a half hour of the incident as he was found with the dead body of the deceased Sumer Singh. 6. The prosecution has relied mainly two witnesses to the occurrence, namely (PW. 2) Mahi Pal Singh and (PW. 4) Surendra Singh. (PW. 6. The prosecution has relied mainly two witnesses to the occurrence, namely (PW. 2) Mahi Pal Singh and (PW. 4) Surendra Singh. (PW. 2) Mahipal Singh has deposed that he was on the field and his father had already gone to the field for weeding operation along with labourers. At about 10 a.m., Amar Singh, Barkat Ali and Iqbal, all armed with pistols and Kishore armed with sword came there and started abusing and asked them to run away from the field. They also tried to stop the labourers from working. On objection being raised by his father, accused Amar Singh asked Barkat Ali to shoot him and Barkat Ali fired causing injury on left side of his abdomen, as a result of which Sumer Singh immediately fell down. Therefore, Kishore Singh ran after him (Mahipal Singh) with sword but he escaped unhurt. In the meantime, (PW. 4) Surendra Singh, Mahaveer Singh, Ravindra Singh, Prahlad Singh, Sudepal Singh came there in Tata Sumo. They stopped the vehicle at some distance and came down on foot and asked the accused persons as to why they shot him dead. The accused Amar Singh challenged that one is already dead and all others could also be shot dead. As Surendra Singh and others proceeded towards the field, Amar Singh and Iqbal both fired pistol at them but they escaped unhurt. Thereafter all the accused persons ran away towards the Primary School of the village. Sumer Singh was taken to the hospital and there he died. 7. PW. 7 Surendra Singh is cousin in distant relationship with the deceased Sumer Singh. It was deposed by him that he had gone to village Sephra Guwar from Jaipur by Tata Sumo on the previous night of the incident as he wanted to visit the temple of ‘Mansa Mata’ on the following day and thus had a night halt at the house of Sumer Singh. In the morning of 6 a.m. Sumer Singh left house to arrange for some labourers for weeding operation in the field. At about 9 o’clock in the morning he was informed by 2-3 children that some muslim fellows along with Amar Singh, Kishore Singh had gone to the field so as to stop the work at the field, therefore, he along with Mahaveer Singh, Sudaipal Singh, Ravindra Singh and driver Prahlad went to the field. At about 9 o’clock in the morning he was informed by 2-3 children that some muslim fellows along with Amar Singh, Kishore Singh had gone to the field so as to stop the work at the field, therefore, he along with Mahaveer Singh, Sudaipal Singh, Ravindra Singh and driver Prahlad went to the field. They left the vehicle across the ‘nala’ and on proceeding towards the field they saw that Barkat Ali firing pistol on Sumer Singh which hit him at the left side of his abdomen. On being asked as to why they had done so, Amar Singh challenged that they had already killed one and all of them could also be killed. Amar Singh fired two shots and Iqbal also fired one shot towards them but none of them was hurt. Kishore Singh ran with the sword towards Mahi Pal Singh. Mahipal escaped unhurt. Then all the four accused persons went towards Primary School of the village. Sumer Singh was taken to hospital at Khetri where he died. S.H.O. Police Station, Khetri, came there and recorded his ‘Parchabayan’ and also prepared ‘Panchayatnama’ of the dead body (Exhibit P. 7). Blood stained ‘Bushirt’, ‘Pent’ and ‘Baniyan’ of the deceased were recovered vide Memo Exhibit P. 8. 8. (PW. 1) Leela Ram has been examined by the prosecution on the point that he had gone to the field as labourer and saw the occurrence. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution as he ha deposed that though he had gone for weeding operation of the crop but he did not remember whose field it was and what happened as he ray away from there. 9. (PW. 8) Hoshiyar Singh is resident of Dhani Dudiyo Wali (within revenue area of village Sephra Guwar), and has deposed that on the date of incident at about 8-8.15 a.m. while he saw going to take tea at the tea shop of Vijay Sharma at village Sephra Guwar, he saw Barkat Ali, Iqbal, Amar Singh, and Kishore Singh going towards Ragro-Ka-Mohalla. After 15-20 minutes he heard that firing had taken place in he field of Sumer Singh. He has further deposed that Sumer Singh was ploughing that field since long. He is also a witness of the recovery of sword at the instance of Kishore Singh vide Memo (Exhibit P. 11). 10. After 15-20 minutes he heard that firing had taken place in he field of Sumer Singh. He has further deposed that Sumer Singh was ploughing that field since long. He is also a witness of the recovery of sword at the instance of Kishore Singh vide Memo (Exhibit P. 11). 10. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that the (Parcha Bayan) FIR was lodged by (PW. 7) Surendra Singh, who made material improvements in the statement that he saw accused Barkat Ali inflicting gun shot injury to Sumer Singh and the other accused persons also fired on them and that Kishore Singh ran after Mahi Pal Singh (PW. 2) with a sword while no such version of the incident was narrated by him in he ‘Parcha Bayan’ (Exhibit P. 5), hence testimony of this witness has been rendered untrustworthy. It has further been contended that Mahi Pal Singh (PW. 2) has no been named in the F.I.R. (Exhibit P. 5) and hence his presence at the place of occurrence is not established. 11. On close scrutiny of the testimony of Surendra Singh (PW. 7), it is revealed that the first information report is based on his ‘Parchabayan’ recorded in the hospital by S.H.O. soon after the occurrence and hence the manner in which the incident took place as described in the FIR and corroborated to the extent in his statement can not be doubted. From his testimony, it is clear that in fact he had gone to Tata Sumo at the place of occurrence and even if his version that he himself saw Barkat Ali, firing at Sumer Singh, is not believed, this much can very well be relied that on reaching the field, he saw the appellants Barkat Ali, his nephew, Amar Singh and Kishore Singh appellants running away from he field and Barkat Ali and his nephew had revolvers in their hands and on being enquired they were told that one was shot dead and they could also be shot dead. On closely scrutinizing the testimony of Mahi Pal Singh, son of the deceased, his version to that extent can safely be relied that he was at the field and his father was shot dead by Barkat Ali and his father sustained fire injury on left side of his abdomen and fell down. This statement also stands corroborated by the fact that soon after (PW. This statement also stands corroborated by the fact that soon after (PW. 7) Surendra Singh with others came to the field in Tata Sumo and the appellant Barkat Ali was seen with a pistol in his hand. In the FIR (Parcha Bayan Exhibit P. 5), the fact that his father was shot dead finds mention and that a corresponding injury of the deceased was corroborated by the medical evidence of (PW. 9) Dr. Bhagwan Das Sharma who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sumer Singh and found a bullet in the wound, which was seized, vide Memo (Exhibit P. 6) by the SHO Khetri (PW. 4) Karan Singh. 12. The prosecution case of causing fire arm injury is further corroborated from the fact that appellants Barkat Ali and Mohammad Iqbal were arrested on 09.09.2001 by Delhi Police on the information that they were threatening one Madan Khan and demanding ransom of Rs. 2 lacs in a case registered at Police Station Sultanpuri. On this information, a Police Party was constituted which proceeded Karbla Lodi Colony, Delhi and arrested both of them. A Delhi loaded Country made pistol 315 bore was recovered vide Exhibit P. 16 from the possession of Barkat Ali while a country made pistol (Deshi Katta) was recovered from Mohammad Iqbal vide Exhibit P. 14. 13. The prosecution has examined (PW. 10) Raj Pal Dhabas, S.I. Delhi Police, (PW. 11) Ram Kumar A.S Delhi Police and (PW. 17) Shiv Kumar, A.S.I. Delhi Police on the point of the said recovery of fire arms and registration of a case under Section 25 of the Arms Act against the accused appellants Barkat Ali and Mohammad Iqbal. During investigation it was revealed that he said arms were used by accused appellants in the incident at Sephra Guwar, in which Sumer Singh was shot dead and hence Police Station Khetri was informed. .14. The contention of learned Counsel that presence of Mahi Pal, (PW. 2) at the place of occurrence is not established because his name was not mentioned in ‘Parcha Bayan’ (FIR) (Exhibit P. 5), is not of much significance in the facts and circumstances of the case as the statement of Mahi Pal Singh as an eye witness was recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code on the very next day of the occurrence and his presence is further established from the testimony of PW. 7 Surendra Singh. 7 Surendra Singh. In this case the FIR is based on the ‘Parchabayan’ of (PW. 7) Surendra Singh, which was recorded in the hospital by S.H.O. Police Khetri and as such it can not be expected of (PW. 7) Surendra Sing to give all the details as he himself explained that he was under a shock hence he could not narrate other details. This witness has been confronted with his police statement Exhibit D. 2 on the point of improvements made in the deposition but nothing has been asked to suggest that (PW. 2) Mahi Pal Singh was not present at the field. In Babu Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 3250, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if the witness found to be independent and is believed to be present during occurrence, then his evidence can not be rejected on sole ground of non-mention of his name in FIR, as under : .“F.I.R. can be used only for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the maker thereof . That apart, the FIR was lodged by the father who has stated to have seen the ghastly occurrence, one son killed the other and at that juncture if he did not mention the name of Jai Narayan to be a witness to the occurrence, the evidence of Jai Narayan cannot be doubted on that score, it is well settled that if the witness is found to be independent and reliable and is believed to be present during the occurrence then his evidence can not be rejected on the sole ground that his name had not been mentioned in the FIR. Non-mention of name of a witness may be an honest omission, inadvertent mistake or may be due to various other conceivable reasons”. .15. Non-mention of name of a witness may be an honest omission, inadvertent mistake or may be due to various other conceivable reasons”. .15. The duty of the Court is to visualize the situation at the time of occurrence of incident while appreciating the evidence and to separate truth from falsehood and the chaff from the grain even with regard to the interested witnesses and that the prosecution case is not to be thrown over board if the substratum of the prosecution stands proved, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Tek Singh & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 1742 , as under : .“Further, the Court while appreciating the evidence ought to have kept in mind an d visualized the situation at the time of occurrence of the incident. Evidence of the witness should be appreciated by keeping ground reality and fact situation in mind. It is also established law that even with regard to the interested witness, it is the duty of the Court to separate truth from falsehood and the chaff from the grain. In view of the close relationship, witnesses naturally would have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts but while appreciating the evidence exaggerated facts are to be ignored unless it affects substratum of prosecution story. In the case of State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 , this Court pointed out that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is found, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief”. 16. 16. Bearing in mind the above guidelines, we find that though there has been certain improvements and exaggerations in the testimony of the witnesses to the occurrence discussed above, but on separating truth from falsehood and grain from the chaff and on keeping ground reality and fact situation in mind, on appreciating the evidence of these witnesses, read as a whole, there appears to be a ring of truth and the substratum of the prosecution story stands proved which lead to the irresistible conclusion that the deceased Sumer Singh was shot dead by accused Barkat Ali and to that extent prosecution case stands proved beyond doubt while there being no consistent and convincing evidence against the appellants Mohammad Iqbal, Kishore Singh and Amar Singh, the possibility of their over implication in the case, can not be ruled out. Thus, we find that the prosecution has been successful to prove the offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused Barkat Ali while it has failed to prove the offence under Sections 302/34, 447 IPC against rest of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 17. For these reasons we dispose of the instant appeals in the following terms : 2008Appeals of appellant Barkat Ali being devoid of merit stands dismissed and conviction and sentence awarded to him under Section 302 IPC are maintained. We, however, acquit him of the charge under Section 447 IPC. .(2) Appeals of the appellants Mohammad Iqbal, Kishore Singh and Amar Singh are allowed and they stand acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34 IPC. Appellant Mohammad Iqbal, who is in jail shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Kishore Singh and Amar Singh are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. .(3) Impugned Judgment of the learned trial Judge stands modified as indicated above.