JUDGMENT G.S. Sistani, J.- Four appellants have challenged their conviction under Sections 302/307/397/412, IPC vide judgment dated 21.4.2005 and also the sentence imposed on them vide order dated 27.4.2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, arising out of the Sessions Case No. 165/2001 FIR No. 445/2000 of Police Station Prashant Vihar. All these appeals arise out of the same judgment of conviction and they were heard together. We are deciding these appeals by this common judgment. 2. The case of the prosecution, as set up, is that on 27.12.2000 a DO No. 26, P.P. Section 16 Rohini, P.S. Prashant Vihar was registered, in which it was mentioned that at aoout 9.15 p.m., a dacoity had taken place near the house of one Kulwant Rana at Village Shahbad Daulatpur near Delhi Engineering college. Upon receipt of this information, SI Sukhvinder Singh along with others reached at the spot i.e. House No.7, Village Shahbad, Daulatpur, Delhi, which belonged to one Mr. Kulwant Rana. Upon inquiry, they came to know that Smt. Saroj Devi, mother of Kulwant Rana and their servant Lok Raj Bahadur were already removed in injured condition to Jaipur Golden Hospital. Blood was scattered in the room and household articles were also scattered. Later it was learnt that the dead body of Smt. Saroj Devi was sent to the mortuary. The other injured Lok Raj Bahadur was declared unfit to make any statement. 3. Case of the prosecution further is that all the appellants herein namely Ram Das, Vikram Das, Manoj Kumar Das and Triloki Das along with one Shankar Das in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery / dacoity in the house of Kulwan.t Rana. They used deadly weapons i.e. Talwar/Rapi and Iron Daav and at the time of committing the said robbery / dacoity, they in furtherance of common intention had committed murder of Smt. Saroj Devi and caused injury on the person of Lok Raj Bahadur with deadly weapon i.e. Iron Daav. 4. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 31 witnesses. All the accused persons have been convicted under Sections 302/34, IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 4. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 31 witnesses. All the accused persons have been convicted under Sections 302/34, IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months, also R.I. of 7 years with fine of Rs.1000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sections 307/34, IPC and further R.I. of 7 years under Sections 397/34, IPC. All sentences were to run concurrently. 5. Accused Ram Nath Das and Vikram Das, about one month prior to the date of incident, had visited the house of Kulwant Rana to seek his help for recovering compensation from Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, the owner of the factory, where their brother-in-law had received injury while working in the factory of Sh. K.K. Aggarwal. As the case was already registered against the factory owner, Sh. K.K. Aggarwal refused further compensation and Kulwant Rana expressed his inability to help them and due to this reason both the accused persons, Ram Nath Das and Vikram Das along with their accomplice Triloki Das, Shankar Das and Manoj Das in order to take revenge from Kulwant Rana committed the robbery/dacoity in the house of Kulwant Rana and murdered Smt. Saroj Devi and caused grievous injury to their servant Lok Raj Bahadur. It was further disclosed by the La. who came to know that accused Ram Nath Das and Vikram Das had visited the house of Kulwant Rana about one month prior to the date of incident and as Kulwant Rana expressed his inability to help them, they committed the crime to take revenge from Kulwant Rana. 6. On 28.12.2000, the accused persons- Triloki Das, Ram Nath Das and Manoj Das were arrested from House No. B-3, Cali No. 12, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi; and five silver coins, some currency notes, clothes and weapon, of offence were recovered. The accused made disclosure statements. The above three accused persons were produced on 29.12.2000 before the Court d for TIP, but they refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. On 7.1.2001 statement of the injured Lok Raj Bahadur was recorded. Subsequently accused Vikram Das was also arrested. He also refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. 7. The accused made disclosure statements. The above three accused persons were produced on 29.12.2000 before the Court d for TIP, but they refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. On 7.1.2001 statement of the injured Lok Raj Bahadur was recorded. Subsequently accused Vikram Das was also arrested. He also refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. 7. Prosecution has examined 31 witnesses. It would be useful to discuss evidence of some of the material witnesses in detail. 8. PW-1, Sh. Lok Bahadur is the only material eye-witness in this case. In his examination-in-chief apart from other facts, he has stated that he had been working as a servant with Kulwant Rana for the last two years, prior to the date of incident, and Kulwant Rana took him into employment on the asking of Vijay Bahadur who belongs to Nepal and was living in the neighbourhood of Kulwant Rana. He has further stated in his examination-in-chief that Kulwant Rana was a BJP worker and many people used to visit him. About 20-25 days prior to the date of the incident, Ram Nath Das and his elder brother Vikram Das resident of Shahbad Dairy came to the house of Kulwant Rana at about 7 p.m. At that time Kulwant Rana was not at home and Lok Raj Bahadur enquired from them as to why and from where they had come, upon which they told him that they have come from Shahbad Dairy as their Jija (brother-in-law) had met with an accident in the factory and the factory owner was not paying any compensation and so they had come to seek help of Kulwant Rana who could help them, thereafter, they waited for Kulwant Rana and after sometimes they left. He has further stated in his examination-in-chief that on 27.12.2000 Ram Nath Das, Vikram Das had again came at about 7 p.m. along with three other persons and he opened the door of the house when they pressed the bell and he told them that Kulwant Rana was not at home. At that time those persons were carrying arms in their hands, which were Katar and Iron Daav and they started beating him with these weapons and he raised an alarm. At that time those persons were carrying arms in their hands, which were Katar and Iron Daav and they started beating him with these weapons and he raised an alarm. He has further stated in his examination-in-chief that Ram Nath Das, Vikram Das and one accomplice had cought hold of him while the remaining 3 started hitting him with the weapons they were carrying with them. On hearing the alarm, mother of Kulwant Rana, namely, Smt. Saroj Devi who was working in the kitchen came out and, thereafter, Triloki Das, Manoj Das and Shankar Das caught hold of Smt. Saroj Devi and remaining three persons hit her with the deadly weapons they were carrying with them and he resisted the attacks on him and in that process he reached in the inside room and Smt. Saroj Devi fell down on the floor after she was hit and he entered in the bathroom of that room and the accused also followed him and he fell down in the bathroom 6n the floor, upon which they thought that he had died and thereafter all of them broke almirahs and committed robbery / dacoity and in the meanwhile he closed himself in the bathroom by bolting it from inside but he was hearing the sounds and they continued rampaging the house for about half an hour and thereafter they left the house. He has further stated in his examination-in-chief that after 10/15 minutes of their leaving the house, Yoginder Rana, younger brother of Kulwant Rana reached in the house and called his mother. On hearing his voice, he called him from inside the bathroom "BAUJI MUJHE SHAHBAD DAIRY WALE MAR GAYE MUJE ANDAR SE NIKALO" and meanwhile Kulwant Rana and other villagers reached there. He has further stated in his examination-in-chief that he received injuries on his head, neck, shoulder, hand, legs, etc. and he could not open the bolt of the bathroom as he was injured seriously and thereafter, door of the bathroom was broke opened and he was taken out from there and he came to know the names of three persons as Triloki Das, Shankar Das and Manoj Das as they were addressing each others with these names. He has further stated in his examination-in-chief that he was taken to hospital and Smt. Saroj Devi was already moved to the hospital prior to him. He has further stated in his examination-in-chief that he was taken to hospital and Smt. Saroj Devi was already moved to the hospital prior to him. The police recorded his statement in the hospital and, thereafter, all the 5 persons were apprehended by police on his pointing-out on different names and he has identified all the 4 accused persons in the Court except Shankar Das. He has also identified the sword Ex. P/1 as the same was recovered from the room at the spot; Rapi Ex. P /2 used by Vikram Das; Shawl Ex. P /3 worn by accused Vikram Das at the time of incident; Quilt Ex. P/4 which was lying in the room of Smt. Saroj Devi; clothes Ex. P/5 to Ex. P/9 belonging to him and worn by him at the time of incident; Saree Ex. P/10 worn by Smt. Saroj Devi at the time of incident; pair of shoes Ex. P/11 and clothes of Smt. Saroj Devi as Ex. P /12 to Ex. P/16. He has also identified pieces of Daav Ex. P/17 which was in the hand of Manoj Das; blanket Ex. P/18 worn by accused Shankar Das at the time of incident; blanket Ex. P/19 as the same was worn by accused Ram Nath Das at the time of incident; Daav Ex. P /20 which was in the hand of Triloki Das at the time of incident; Daav Ex. P21 which was in the hand of Shankar Das; Shawl Ex. P /22 worn by accused Manoj Das at the time of incident; and Daav Ex. P /23 which was in the hand of Vikram Das. He has further stated that he received injuries behind his left ear, back of his head in the neck and also on his back and on his finger of left hand. He remained admitted in the hospital for 20 days for his treatment of injuries he had sustained. 9. PW-2 Sh. Sant Ramhas stated that on 27.12.2000 at about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m., he had gone to the house of Kulwant Rana at H. No.7, Shahbad Village Daulatpur, Delhi and while he was about to enter the house of Kulwant Rana, he sawall the 4 accused persons present in Court along with one more person, coming out from the house of Kulwant Rana. PW-2 had then asked all of them as to whether Kulwant Rana was at home, he was told that Kulwant Rana was not at home and that they had also come to meet Kulwant Rana and they were returning since Kulwant Rana was not at home, so he also did not enter the house of Kulwant Rana and at that time all the five persons were wearing shawls and chadar. This witness has d further stated that on 4.1.2001, he was called by the police and he identified accused persons, namely, Ram Nath Das, Triloki Das and Manoj Das in PS Prashant Vihar and on 3.2.2001 he also identified Vikram Das when he was called in the Police Station. 10. PW-3 Sh. Ravi Sharma, in his examination-in-chief apart from other facts, has stated that on 27.12.2000, he joined the investigation of this case and after the incident in his presence police lifted blood from different places from the house of Kulwant Rana and these exhibits were seized by the police vide seizure memo PW3/ A. In addition to that, he has also stated that a blood stained sword and Rapi were also lifted from the spot and these weapons were converted into different parcels and sealed with the seal of SS and after preparing sketches of these weapons, these weapons were taken into custody vide memo Exs. PW 3/B and PW3/C respectively. He has also stated that some clothes having blood stains were also lifted from the spot and seized after converting them into different parcels after sealing the same with the seal of SS. He has also stated in his examination-in-chief that on the same day he along with the police went to House No. B-3/12, Shahbad Dairy and from there accused persons namely Ram Nath, Manoj and Triloki were apprehended and their disclosure statements Exs. PW3/ D to PW3 /F were recorded and thereafter accused Ram Nath got recovered one Daav having blood stains on it with wooden handle, sketch of which was prepared vide Ex. PW3 / C and Daav was sealed and seized vide memo Ex. PW3/ D to PW3 /F were recorded and thereafter accused Ram Nath got recovered one Daav having blood stains on it with wooden handle, sketch of which was prepared vide Ex. PW3 / C and Daav was sealed and seized vide memo Ex. PW3/H which was converted into parcel and accused Ram Nath Das also got recovered some currency notes and silver coins which were also seized vide memo PW3/I. He has further stated that accused Triloki Das also handed over a blood stained bed-sheet of Maroon colour from his Almirah inside that room and a Daav which was also blood stained and was also having a handle and a sketch of that Daav was prepared which is Ex. PW3/J. The bed sheet and the Daav recovered from accused Triloki Das were converted into separate parcels with the help of white cloth and were sealed with the seal of BSS and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/K He has also stated that accused Manoj Das also took out a Daav of iron without handle having blood stains on it hidden amongst the household articles from the Taand and that Dau was also converted into parcel with the help of white cloth after preparing a sketch of it which is Ex. PW3/L and it was sealed with the seal of BSS and was seized vide seizure memo PW3/M. He further stated that all the three persons then led them to the house of Kulwant Rana and pointed out towards his house and stated that they, along with their friends had killed mother of Kulwant Rana and caused injury to his servant on 27.12.2000 and had also committed robbery / dacoity in that house. The pointing out memo in that regard is Ex. PW3/N. He has further stated that on 2.2.2001, he was called by police at Prashant Vihar and he met Additional SHO Inspr. Ravinder there and he told him about accused Vikram Das who was also in the PS at that time and he joined investigation with Inspr. Ravinder. The accused Vikram Das made a disclosure statement Ex. PW3/N. He has further stated that on 2.2.2001, he was called by police at Prashant Vihar and he met Additional SHO Inspr. Ravinder there and he told him about accused Vikram Das who was also in the PS at that time and he joined investigation with Inspr. Ravinder. The accused Vikram Das made a disclosure statement Ex. PW3/O and admitted to have committed murder of mother of Kulwant Rana and caused injury to his servant Lok Raj Bahadur and he stated that he did so along with his friends namely Trilok Das, Ram Nath, Manoj Das and Shankar Das and thereafter accused Vikram Das also led them to the house of Kulwant Rana and pointed out towards his house and a memo in that regard was prepared which is Ex. PW3/P. He further stated that the pointing out memos of accused Manoj Das and Triloki Das were also prepared on 28.12.2000 when they pointed out towards the house of Kulwant Rana and the memos in that regard are Ex. PW3/Q and PW3/R respectively. He has also identified the case property and corrobora ted the version of PW1 on these facts. 11. PWS Kulwant Rana is the son of the deceased who has corroborated the version of PWI on the factum of visit of accused Ram Nath Das and Vikram Das for the purpose to seek his help for getting compensation from Sh. KK Aggarwal. He has also corroborated the version of PW3 on the fact of lifting the exhibits from the spot. In addition to that he has stated on 20.1.2001 that he had participated in the TIP of case property which was recovered from his house and he has proved the TIP proceeding as Ex. PW5/A. He has also identified 5 silver coins as Ex. P24/1 to 5, currency notes collectively as Ex. P25 and Ex. P26. He has also identified sword Ex. P1, Rapi Ex. P2, yellow colour blanket Ex. P18 and a quilt as Ex. P4. 12. PW 6 Sh. KK Aggarwal has supported the prosecution case and corroborated the version of PW 5 Sh. Kulwant Rana on the factum of receiving the injury by one Chander Shekhar who was relative of accused Vikram Das and on the factum of demanding the compensation through ash Kulwant Rana. 13. PW-7 Sh. P4. 12. PW 6 Sh. KK Aggarwal has supported the prosecution case and corroborated the version of PW 5 Sh. Kulwant Rana on the factum of receiving the injury by one Chander Shekhar who was relative of accused Vikram Das and on the factum of demanding the compensation through ash Kulwant Rana. 13. PW-7 Sh. Yogesh Singh has stated that on 27.12.2000 he reached at the spot after the incident and found the goods scattered on the floor and also found his mother and servant lying in injured condition and in his presence both the injured were shifted to the hospital. b 14. PW-17, Const. Parvinder Singh is the photographer, who has proved photograph of the place of incident as Ex. PW 17/A1 to Ex. PW 17/ A14 and also proved the negatives thereof as Ex. PW 17/B1 to Ex. PW 17/B22. 15. PW-18, Sh. Ravinder Kumar has proved the MLC of Lok Raj Bahadur as Ex. PW 181 A, MLC of Saroj Devi as Ex. PW 18/B and also proved death report of Saroj Devi as Ex. PW 18/C and has also proved the cause of death as Ex. PW 18/D. 16. PW-27, Sh. Sudesh Kumar, learned MM has proved the application of TIP proceedings Ex. PW 271 A in respect of accused Triloki Das, Ram d Nath and Manoj Kumar and stated that these accused persons have refused to participate in the TIP proceedings vide TIP proceedings Ex. PW 27/B. He has also proved his certificate as Ex. PW 271C and stated that TIP proceedings were given to 10 vide his application Ex. PW27/D. He has also stated that on 20.1.2001, he also conducted the TIP of case property of the application Ex. PW27 IE and TIP proceedings are proved as Ex. PW51 A and his certificate is proved as Ex. PW27 IF and stated that copy of the TIP proceedings were given to the 10 on his application Ex. PW27/G. In addition to that he stated that on 2.2.2001, he also conducted TIP of accused Vikram Das on application Ex. PW 27/H but the said accused also refused to participate in the TIP and statement of the accused in this respect is Ex. PW27 II and statement of Inspr. R.K. Sharma are proved as Ex. PW27 II and TIP Proceedings as Ex. PW 27/K and certificate of learned MM to this effect is Ex. PW27/L. 17. PW-30. PW 27/H but the said accused also refused to participate in the TIP and statement of the accused in this respect is Ex. PW27 II and statement of Inspr. R.K. Sharma are proved as Ex. PW27 II and TIP Proceedings as Ex. PW 27/K and certificate of learned MM to this effect is Ex. PW27/L. 17. PW-30. Inspector Bhoop Singh is the main 10 of this case, who has supported the case of the prosecution and corroborated the version of PW3 Ravi Sharma on the issues of lifting the exhibits and weapons of offence 7 from the spot, visit of photographer, crime team and dog squad at the spot, preparation of sketch of the weapons of offence and their seizure and registration of FIR on the basis of rukka prepared by SI Shyam Sunder. In addition to that, he also proved prescription slip of injured as Exs. PW 301 A and PW 30/B, inquest papers of deceased Saroj Devi as Exs. PW 30lC to PW 30/F and Ex. PW 41 A, Exs. PW 18/C and PW 18/D. He has also corroborated the version of PW Ct. Anangpal on the points of recording the statements of Kulwant Rana and Santram, arrest of accused Ram Nath Das, Triloki Das and Manoj Kumar Das and recording of their disclosure statements and seizure of different articles and weapons of offence on the pointing out of accused persons and also their TIP proceedings conducted by learned MM, medical examination of accused persons and depositing of case property with MHCM. In addition to that, he has further stated that on 7.1.2001, he recorded the statement given by the doctor and on 12.1.2001, injured Lok Raj Bahadur was brought to Tis Hazari Court and on the way he identified the accused persons in Judicial custody and has also proved site plan as Ex. PW 30/G and has also identified the case property i.e. Ex. P1 to Ex. P.25. 18. PW-31, Inspector Ravinder Kumar has stated that on 20.1.2001, he received the investigation of this case and during the investigation, he got identified the case property before the learned MM by complainants and also arrested accused Vikram Das in this case vide application Ex. PW31/ A and he has also got conducted the TIP of accused Vikram Das in the Court and proved his application in this respect as Ex. PW31/B, bearing TIP refusal proceedings Ex. PW31/ A and he has also got conducted the TIP of accused Vikram Das in the Court and proved his application in this respect as Ex. PW31/B, bearing TIP refusal proceedings Ex. PW31/C. He has also obtained the opinion of doctor regarding weapons of the offence. 19. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as for the Counsel for the State who have taken us through the evidence and other material on record. 20. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the judgment of the lower Court is bad in law and is based on surmises and conjectures and in fact the case of the prosecution is based on false, fictitious and fabricated facts and there is no evidence against the appellants. Counsel also contended that there are material contradictions in the depositions made by the witnesses of the prosecution and no reliance can be placed on the evidence, which is doubtful and suspicious. The appellants have in fact been framed and eye witness has been introduced to implicate the appellants. They have also argued that the various witnesses have made considerable improvement in their statements. There are material contradictions and inherent inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Counsel have vehemently urged that the evidence of PW.1 is also not worth reliance as there has been considerable delay in recording his statement. The incident took place on 27.12.2000, the statement of PW-1 Lok Raj Bahadur was recorded after a considerable delay on 7.1.2001. Counsel for the appellants have also argued with force that there are inconsistencies in the statement made by PW-l on 7.1.2001 as well as in the evidence recorded by the Court. 21. In addition to the contentions raised above, Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, learned Counsel for the appellant, Ram Nath Dass, has contended that the evidence of PW -1 cannot be relied upon as the same is full of contradictions he also submits that robbery / dacoity cannot be the motive as besides Rs. 100/-, five (5) silver coins are stated to be missing nor revenge can be the motive of the offence and the prosecution has not been Rule to prove the same. 22. 100/-, five (5) silver coins are stated to be missing nor revenge can be the motive of the offence and the prosecution has not been Rule to prove the same. 22. Learned Counsel for the said appellant has pointed out that in his examination PW-1 had stated that 3 persons had caught hold of him and three persons were hitting him, whereas in fact only five persons were I named. Also the fact that PW-l had stated that he had told the Police about• the names, description and address of the appellants, whereas in the b statement recorded, the descriptions and addresses of the accused persons were not mentioned. Learned Counsel further stated that at certain places wi tness has mentioned Katar find in some places Daav has been mentioned. Also the witness has stated that the appellants were arrested at his instance, which is factually incorrect, and thus no reliance can be placed on the evidence of this witness. . 23. It is also contended that there is a marked improvement in the statement of PW-1, Lok Raj Bahadur as in the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., he did not name the person who had caught hold of the deceased and, thus, there is a strong contradiction. 24. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants Manoj Kumar Dass d and Triloki Dass have submitted that these appellants had never visited the house of the deceased and these appellants have been falsely implicated in 25. Additionally it has been stated by learned Counsel for the appellants, Ram Nath Dass, Triloki Dass and Manoj Dass that no finger prints were found at the spot of the incident of any of these three appellants thus their presence at the spot is doubtful. Mr. Jitender Khanna, Counsel for Vikram Dass while relying upon the arguments of the Counsel for the appellant has additionally raised two issues. Firstly Vikram Dass was arrested on the basis of the disclosure made and according to learned Counsel PW-2 is also a chance witness and his presence is highly doubtful at the time and date of the incident. He further submits that there was no specific order for taking finger prints arid the finger prints of Vikram Dass would also be on account of his previous visit to the House of Kulwant Rana. 26. Mr. He further submits that there was no specific order for taking finger prints arid the finger prints of Vikram Dass would also be on account of his previous visit to the House of Kulwant Rana. 26. Mr. Verma, COlmsel for the appellant Manoj Kumar Dass has submitted that only the allegation against Manoj Kumar Dass is that he had only caught hold of the deceased and, thus, his role can be restricted to committing robbery / dacoity and not murder. He further submits that the appellant, Manoj Kumar Dass was not named by Kulwant Rana, the son of the deceased, neither his finger prints were found and only five coins and five notes were recovered from him. Thus, it cannot be said in any way that there was common intention to murder. 27. Counsel for the Vikram Dass also submits that the role of PW-2 is highly suspicious on account of the fact that he is a chance witness and his presence is highly doubtful. 28. Learned Counsel has strongly urged that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive to the crime of murder and dacoity on the ground that the stolen goods which have been mentioned are of very little value and the amount was barely Rs. 100/- and five silver coins. 29. In this case, the evidence of PW-1 Lok Raj Bahadur is of utmost importance. This we say for the reason that Lok Raj Bahadur is the eye witness and a victim as well. He has categorically mentioned in his evidence that about 20-25 days, prior to the date of incident, Ram Nath Dass and his elder brother Vikram Dass, resident of Shahbad Dairy, had come to the house of I PW-1 has identified all the appellants in Court. During the course of his evidence he has also identified the sword which was found having blood stains, a Rapi as well as Iron Daav. During the course of cross-examination, according to PW-1, he had told the police about the names, descriptions and addresses of the accused persons and they were arrested at his instance. The witness was confronted with PW-1/DA, PW-1/DB and PW1/DC wherein he had not been mentioned that the accused persons were arrested at his instance and description and further addresses of the accused persons were also not mentioned except the names. 30. The witness was confronted with PW-1/DA, PW-1/DB and PW1/DC wherein he had not been mentioned that the accused persons were arrested at his instance and description and further addresses of the accused persons were also not mentioned except the names. 30. Evidence of PW-l read with the evidence of Kulwant Rana, PW5 as well as statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of Ram Nath Dass and Vikram Dass, wherein both Ram Nath Dass and Vikram Dass have not denied having visited tne nouse of Kulwant Rana in connection with the accident of their brother-in-law. It is clearly established that Ram Nath Dass and Vikram Dass had visited Kulwant Rana in connection with the accident of their brother-in-law. For PW-l to falsely implicate Vikram Dass and Ram Dass without any motive is extremely unnatural, as this witness was a victim and he suffered serious injuries in the incident. There would be no purpose for him to shield the real culprits and implicate the appellants. This witness has been cross-examined at length and we feel that he withstood the test of cross-examination. 31. The evidence of PW-l is further corroborated with the evidence of PW-2 who has stated that he had gone to the house of Kulwant Rana on the date of the incident between 7.30 and 8.00 pm and while he was about to enter the house, he had seen all the four appellants coming out of the house of Kulwant Rana. 32. Soon after the incident, statement of Kulwant Rana, PW-S was recorded. In this statement, he has mentioned that Ram Nath Dass and Vikram Dass had approached Kulwant Rana and had requested him to speak to the owner of the factory where their brother-in-law was working and had met with an accident. 33. The evidence of PWS, Kulwant Rana is extremely relevant from the point of view that during the visit of Ram Dass and Vikram Dass which visit is not denied even by Ram Nath Dass and Vikram Dass there was unpleasantness. According to PW-5, Ram Nath Dass had got annoyed with him and had abused him and while leaving the house, he had threatened him. 34. The owner of the factory, Sh. KK Aggarwal was also examined by the prosecution as PW-6. According to PW-5, Ram Nath Dass had got annoyed with him and had abused him and while leaving the house, he had threatened him. 34. The owner of the factory, Sh. KK Aggarwal was also examined by the prosecution as PW-6. He has stated in his evidence that one Chander Shekhar had got injured in his factory who was admitted in a private nursing home and Rs. l5,000/-was spent on his treatment. Another sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid and a total amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the accused Ram Nath Dass and his brother. PW-6 has also stated that he had received a phone call from Kulwant Rana to give more money to Ram Nath Dass for treatment of his brother-in-law, but he had refused to pay the same as sufficient amount of money has already been given and a case had also been registered by the police against him. 35. In the cross-examination, Sh. KK Aggarwal denied the suggestion that no relative of the injured has ever come to his residence to demand money. In fact, he goes on to state that he was threatened that, in case, the money is not paid, he can be killed. 36. PW-S further goes on to state that he had expressed his inability to help Ram Dass and Ram Nath got annoyed and while leaving the house, he abused him and threatened him. In the evidence of PW-5, it has been mentioned that when he reached home, he found articles lying scattered, almirah and bags were open and the sword presented to him was found near the staircase with blood stain and a Rapi - an instrument of cobblers to cut the leather which was also found having blood stained. According to him 2S new notes of Rs. 2 denomination Ami Rs. 10 notes of Rs. 5 denomination in a Mala/garland, 5 silver coins out of which, four coins having Ganesh and Laxmi mark and one coin with the name Naveen Weds Seema were found missing from the house. This witness has also identified the case property which was recovered from Ram Nath Dass, Manoj Dass and Triloki Dass. 37. On. 10 notes of Rs. 5 denomination in a Mala/garland, 5 silver coins out of which, four coins having Ganesh and Laxmi mark and one coin with the name Naveen Weds Seema were found missing from the house. This witness has also identified the case property which was recovered from Ram Nath Dass, Manoj Dass and Triloki Dass. 37. On. a collective reading of the evidences of PW-1, PW-5 and PW6, it dearly emerges that the appellant Ram Nath Dass and Vikram Dass had visited the house of Kulwant Rana to seek his help for recovering compensation from one K.K. Aggarwal in whose factory their brother-in-law was working and where he had met with an accident. The independent testimony of PW-6, Sh. K.K. Aggarwal also shows that Kulwant Rana had requested him to pay compensation on behalf of Ram Nath Dass and Vikram Dass but he had refused. 38. In the statement recorded by the police, Kulwant Rana had mentioned that he had turned Ram Nath Dass and Vikram DRss out of his house and in the evidence, he has categorically stated that as he had expressed his inability to help Ram Nath Dass, he had got annoyed and went away from the house abusing and threatening him. 39. Another material witness, in this case, is PW-3 who is a property dealer of the area, who joined the investigation of the case on 27.12.2000 itself. In his evidence, the property dealer has stated that a blood stained sword and a Rapi were found from the place near the lobby, a blade, one blood stained daav without handle was also found and he had accompanied Inspr. Bhoop Singh to B-3/12, Shahbad Dairy where Ram Nath Dass, Manoj Dass and Triloki Dass were apprehended by the police. 40. In the evidence, he says the disclosure statement PW-3/D, PW-31 E and PW -3 IF were made in his presence. A Daav was recovered from Ram Nath Dass having blood stains; five silver coins on which inscriptions of Ganesh and Laxmi were made and one coin with the impression Naveen Weds See em a and also notes of Rs. 100/- was recovered of the denomination of Rs. 10 and 25 notes of denomination of Rs. 21 -. Woollen bed sheets of brown and green colour were also recovered which were blood stained . from Ram Nath Dass. 100/- was recovered of the denomination of Rs. 10 and 25 notes of denomination of Rs. 21 -. Woollen bed sheets of brown and green colour were also recovered which were blood stained . from Ram Nath Dass. As per his evidence, the appellant Triloki Dass also handed over a bed sheet of maroon colour from his Almirah and a Dau which was also blood stained and accused Manoj Dass also took out a Dau of iron without handle which was hidden amongst the household articles. 41. In this case on 3.1.2001, an application for test identification parade Ex. PW-27/H was assigned to Sh. Sudesh Kumar, MM, Patiala House Courts for the appellants Triloki Das, Manoj Kumar and Ram Nath Das and on 2.2.2001, an application PW-27 /H was made for test identification parade of the appellant Vikram Das. Sh. Sudesh Kumar was examined as PW-27. All the appellants held refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. The statement that the appellants refused to participate in the test identification parade remain unchallenged and, in fact, no cross-examination was carried out on behalf of the appellants. Even otherwise, this Court finds the appellants were identified by PW-1 and PW-2. 42. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the Court must take into consideration whether contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence are material, merely because there are some inconsistencies, is it sufficient to impair the credit of the witness? Should the entire evidence of the wih1ess be discredited? The trial Court has also taken into considerations various judgments of the Supreme Court in State of UP v. M.K. Anthony, reported at (1985) (1) SCC 505; Rammi v. State of M.P., reported at IV (1999) CCR47 (SC)=VIII(1999) SLT82=JT 1999 (7) SC 247; 1999 (8)SCC . 649; Tehsildar Singh v. State of UP, reported at AIR 1959 SC 1012 ; Appabhai and Anr. v. State of Gujarat, reported at JT 1989 (1) SC-249; Sukhdev Yadav d v. State of Bihar, reported at VI (2001) SLT 581=IV (2001) CCR 41 (SC)=JT 2001 (7) SC 597; and Krishna Mochi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, etc., reported at III (2002) SLT 250=II (2002) CCR 104 (SC)=2002 AD (SC) 45, wherein the Apex Court has taken into consideration the grounds/facts, which Court should take into consideration while dealing with the contradictions in the statement of a witness. v. State of Bihar, etc., reported at III (2002) SLT 250=II (2002) CCR 104 (SC)=2002 AD (SC) 45, wherein the Apex Court has taken into consideration the grounds/facts, which Court should take into consideration while dealing with the contradictions in the statement of a witness. While there may be some• discrepancy in the statement, but the contradictions should not be material. A witness who is examined at length is also likely to make some discrepancies, unlike a person who has cramped up the evidence, undue importance should not be given by the Court due to minor discrepancies as long as the test of trustworthiness is satisfied. PW-1 is a nntural eye-witness. He has given a complete description of the appellants; he has narrated how the deceased as well as he had suffered injuries and he has withstood the test of cross-examination. 43. The contradictions which have been brought out are not of such a nature which can prevail upon us to discredit the evidence of this witness. Nothing has been brought on record to show as to why PW-1 would falsely implicate the appellants in the present case. The evidence of PW-S, Sh. Kulwent Rana can also not be discredited for the reason that his mother was brutally murdered to death. It would be natural for him to find out the real killers of his mother, rather then falsely implicate the appellants. The PW1 has identified the appellants as well as PW-2, Sant Ram had also seen the four appellants leaving the house of Kulwant Rana on 27.12.2000 between 7.30 and 8.00 p.m. which is the approximate time of the incident. Thus the identity of the appellants stand established without any shadow of doubt. We are unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel that reliance should not be placed on the evidence of PW-1 as there was considerable delay in recording his statement. Admittedly, the PW-1 suffered grievous injuries and remained in hospital for 20 days. In fact, as per the MLC, in the coloumn nature of injuries (simple/grievous/dangerous), the word dangerous has been encircled. Thus it cannot be said that there was delay in recording his statement. 44. The evidence of PW-3 is also material, he is an independent witness, as he had joined the investigation on the date of the incident itself. In fact, as per the MLC, in the coloumn nature of injuries (simple/grievous/dangerous), the word dangerous has been encircled. Thus it cannot be said that there was delay in recording his statement. 44. The evidence of PW-3 is also material, he is an independent witness, as he had joined the investigation on the date of the incident itself. PW -3 was present when the Police lifted the blood from the two bed rooms, bath room as well as the lobby. He also identified the sword which was stained with blood and Rapi which was found at the site of the incident, besides a blanket, a quilt stained with blood, yellow colour shawl stained with blood, blade of one Daav without handle. PW -3 had also accompanied the Police to B-3/12, Shahbad Dairy when Ram Nath, Manoj and Triloki Dass were arrested. He was also present when the disclosure statements were made and he has stated in evidence that Ram Nath got recovered one Daav having blood stain on it with wooden handle which was put in a parcel and seal (Ex. P-3/H) and duly signed by him at point (A). Ram Nath had also got recovered 5 silver coins, in which inscription of Laxmi and Ganesh was made and one coin with the impression of Naveen Weds . Seema. Ram Nath also got recovered Rs. 100/ - out of which 10 notes of Rs. 5/- denomination and 25 notes of Rs. 2/- denomination, which were new Notes. Ram Nath Dass got recovered a woolen bed sheet of brown and grey colour with blood stained. PW-3 had also signed seizure memo PW-B/i At point (A). Seema. Ram Nath also got recovered Rs. 100/ - out of which 10 notes of Rs. 5/- denomination and 25 notes of Rs. 2/- denomination, which were new Notes. Ram Nath Dass got recovered a woolen bed sheet of brown and grey colour with blood stained. PW-3 had also signed seizure memo PW-B/i At point (A). Based on the statement of PW-l where he had categorically identified Ram Nath Dass, statement of PW-2, who had seen Ram Nath Dass along with other appellants, leaving the house of Kulwant Rana; PW3, who was present when appellant, Ram Nath Dass was arrested and Daav, 5 silver coins and currency, woollen bed sheets were recovered in his presence and also keeping in mind Ram Nath Dass had also visited Kulwant Rana even prior to the date of the incident and requested Kulwant Ram to speak to K.K. Aggarwal for financial assistance for his brother-in-law and also keeping in mind that this request was refused which upset Ram Nath Dass and his brother Vikram Dass, we find no reason to disagree with the finding of the trial Court. 45. As far as submission of Counsel for Vikram Das that the report of the finger prints expert should not be taken into consideration as no permission was taken from the Magistrate, learned Counsel has drawn attention of the Court to 1997 (10) SCC 44 and has relied on portion of para 8 of the judgment, which reads as under: "Even though the specimen fingerprints of Mohd. Aman had to be taken on a number of occasions at the highest of Bureau, they were never taken before or under the order of a Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. It is true that under Section 4 thereof police is competent to take finger prints of the accused but to dispel any suspicion as to its bona fides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence it was eminently desirable that they were taken before or under the order of a Magistrate. The order related infirmity from which the prosecution case suffers is that the brass jug, production of which would have been the best evidence in proof of the claim of its seizure and subsequent examination by the Bureau, was not produced and exhibited during trial- for reasons best known to the prosecution and unknown to the Court. The order related infirmity from which the prosecution case suffers is that the brass jug, production of which would have been the best evidence in proof of the claim of its seizure and subsequent examination by the Bureau, was not produced and exhibited during trial- for reasons best known to the prosecution and unknown to the Court. For the foregoing discussion we are unable to sustain the convictions of Mohd. Aman." 46. The Supreme Court has undoubtedly stated that it would be desirable that an order from the Magistrate should be taken for examination of finger prints in order to dispel any suspicion as to its bona fides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence it was eminently desird able that they were taken before or under the order of a Magistrate; and not as if no report of the finger prints expert can be relied upon in the absence of any order from the Magistrate. 47. This Court has, in fact, placed reliance on the report of the finger prints, in addition, this Court has taken into consideration the factum that admittedly Vikram Das along with Ram Nath Das had visited the house of Kulwant Rana on an earlier occasion. The evidence of PW1, who is the eyewitness as well as the victim, who was seriously injured, evidence of PW2, who saw the appellants including Vikram Dass leaving the house of Kulwant Rana on the date of the occurrence read with report of the handwriting expert, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove that Vikram Das was present at the time of the occurrence. 48. As far as the appellant, Vikram Dass is concerned, according to his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. read with the statement of PW-1, who clearly identified him read with the evidence of PW-2, who had seen him along with other appellants leaving the house of Kulwant Rana on the date of the incident, the evidence of Kulwant Rana, K.K. Aggarwal would show that Vikram Dass had visited the house of Kulwant prior to the date of the incident in connection with the accident of his brother-in-law. His finger prints were found at the spot. His finger prints were found at the spot. PW-l has categorically identified the appellant, Vikram Dass, nothing in the cross-examination has been able to shake PW-l, who has vividly described the incident and the role ascribed to Vikram Dass. 49. We do not find force in the submissions of Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Verma and Mr. Rajesh Mahajan that Manoj Dass and Triloki Das had not accompanied Ram Nath Dass and Vikram Dass on any occasion to the house of Kuwant Rana and no finger prints of Manoj Kumar Dass were found at the spot of the incident and, thus, they have been falsely implicated. 50. It would be useful to reproduce the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju @ Ramesh v. State of A.P., reported at V (2001) SLT 158=III (2001) CCR 33 (SC)= (2001) 6 SCC 205 . 21. Presence of a fingerprint at the scene of occurrence is a positive evidence. But the absence of a fingerprint is not enough to foreclose the presence of the persons concerned at the scene. If during perpetration of the crime the fingerprint of the culprit could possibly be remitted at the scene, it is equally a possibility that such a remnant would not be remitted at all. Hence absence of finger impression is not a guarantee of absence of the person concerned at the scene. 51. We are unable to agree with the stand taken by the Counsel for the appellants Manoj Kumar Das that the role of Manoj Kumar Das was only to hold the deceased and, thus, his role can only be restricted to committing robbery / dacoity. It has also been established that each of the appellants were in the possession of arms and inflicted injuries on PW -1 and Smt. Saroj Devi. The evidence of PW-1 is crystal clear. He has described his evidence specific role of the accused persons, stating that Triloki Dass, Manoj Dass and Shankar Dass had caught hold of Saroj Devi and remaining three hit her with weapons which they were carrying with them. He further goes on to state in his evidence that he resisted the attack on him and he entered the bath room where also he was followed by the appellants and he fell down on the bath room floor. He further goes on to state in his evidence that he resisted the attack on him and he entered the bath room where also he was followed by the appellants and he fell down on the bath room floor. In the entire evidence he has stated that they thought that he had died and thereafter all of them broke Almirah and committed robbery/dacoity. He has stated that he came to know about the names of the persons, as they were addressing to each other with the names. He identified the appellants in the Court. PW-l has also identified arms which were used by the appellants to cause injuries to him as well as injuries to Saroj Devi which resulted in her death. He has identified Rapi which according to him was used by Vikram. He has identified a green colour shawl having a black border which according to him was worn by appellant, Vikram at the time of the incident. He also identified quilt which was in the bed room of the deceased, Saroj Devi as well as he has also identified clothes which were worn by him at the time of incident. PW -1 has also identified a Daav from which having one broken iron piece which according to the appellant PW-1 was in the hand of Manoj Dass. PW-1 has also identified yellow colour blanket which was worn by Shankar Dass. He has identified one black colour blanket, which is stated to have been worn by Ram Nath Dass at the time of the incident, containing blood spots. PW1 has also identified a Daav which was stated to be in the hand of accuseda Triloki Dass and one Daav which was stated to be in the hand of Shankar Dass. A maroon colour shawl had been identified by the witness, as having been worn by the accused Manoj Kumar at the time of the incident and another Daav which is stated to be in the hand of Vikram Dass. A maroon colour shawl had been identified by the witness, as having been worn by the accused Manoj Kumar at the time of the incident and another Daav which is stated to be in the hand of Vikram Dass. The evidence of this witness was concluded on 2.7.2002 and in fact no crossb examination was carried out in spite of opportunity granted, but only subsequently trial Court allowed the Counsel for the appellants to cross-examine PW-1, who has explained that many people used to visit the house of Kulwant Rana and he used to serve tea to the people and would also ask about their whereabouts and the visitors also used to tell him about their work and problem to Kulwant Rana. He has stated that he knew the names of the persons as they had earlier visited the house of Kulwant Rana and in fact they had a talk with Kulwant Rana in his presence. We have no hesitation to hold that all the appellants committed the crime to take revenge and therefore their participation in the commission of crime is undoubtedly clear. 52. The contention raised by the Counsel for the appellants that evidence of PW-l is not trustworthy as he has stated that the appellants were arrested at his instance which is factually incorrect is without force. We do not find contradiction in his evidence to have a conclusive bearing on the facts of this case as it is not clear whether they were arrested at his instance or they were really arrested upon his communicating to Kulwant Rana or Police about the acts of the appellants. In the ultimate analysis of the evidence of the witnesses particularly evidence of PW-1 Lok Raj Bahadur, who was a natural witness and a victim, PW-2 Sant Ram, who has also identified the appellants as he had visited the house of Kulwant Rana on the date of the incident and approximately at the same time, PW-3 Sh. Ravi Sharma who joined the investigation of the case and was a witness to the disclosure statement as well as witness to the seizure memos as well as PW-5 Kulwant Rana the son of the deceased and KK Aggarwal, factory owner where the Iija of the appellants were working, we find that Ram Nath and Vikram Das had earlier visited the house of Kulwant Rana and PW-l has clearly idetified all the appellants. He has identified clothes which were worn by them which are found to have spots of dried blood. The disclosure of the arms used, to cause grievous hurt to PW-l as well as Smt. Saroj Devi, which ultimately resulted in her death and also taking into consideration that the stolen property, the five silver coins out of which four had Lord Gancsh and Laxmi and one coin with the mark of Naveen Weds Seema as well as 10 notes of Rs. 5 denomination and 25 notes of Rs. 2/- denomination new, which were identified by Kulwant Rana and. were recovered at the instance of the appellants in the presence of PW-3 and the finger prints which were identified that the left thumb mark of Vikram Dass,lifted from the spot from the fridge, proves the case of the prosecution without any shadows of doubt in furtherance of a common intention of committing robbery/dacoity of property of Kulwant Rana using deadly weapons and also in furtherance a common intention of committing murder to take revenge. To say that since the finger prints of Ram Nath, Manoj Kumar Dass and Triloki Dass were not found at the spot their presence at the spot is highly doubtful, is not correct. Presence of finger prints would no doubt be positive evidence, however, absence of finger prints is not enough to conclude that the other appellants were not present at the place of occurrence if other overwhelming material evidence exists to show their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. 53. In this case PW-l has vehemently described the role of each of the appellants. The PW-l, who is the eye-witness and also a victim, had suffered serious injuries and the medical evidence placed on record also corroborates the same. It is settled law that Section 34, IPC is not applicable with Section 397, IPC. 54. The prosecution has thus been able to establish without any shadow of doubt that the appellants caused injury on the person of Lok Raj Bahadur with deadly weapons and also had caused death of Smt. Saroj Devi. 55. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court holding the appellants guilty for the offence of robbery as well as murder and these appeals being devoid of any merit arc liable to be dismissed and resultantly we dismiss the Criminal Appeals (Crl. 55. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court holding the appellants guilty for the offence of robbery as well as murder and these appeals being devoid of any merit arc liable to be dismissed and resultantly we dismiss the Criminal Appeals (Crl. A. No. 576/2005, Crl. A. 811/2005, Crl. A. 447/2006 and Crl. A. 707/2005). Appeals dismissed.