K. S. RAKHRA, J. These are two connected appeals against the judgment and order dated 31. 1. 2001 passed by II Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in S. T. No. 1613 of 1997 whereby both the appellants were held guilty and convicted under section 302/34 IPC to life imprisonment, under section 307 IPC to three years R. I. and under section 394 IPC to five years rigorous imprisonment. In addition to this appellant Naseem has further been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under section 411 IPC. Three other persons namely Surendra Singh, Jagmal and Ravindra were also tried along with the appellants for hatching conspiracy for the crime in question but they have been acquitted by the Trial Court. 2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Neetu and his brother Prem P. W. I who were residents of Nepal, were employed in a wine shop at Shamli of district Muzaffarnagar. On 11. 6. 1997 at about 10. 30 a. m. they were going to deposit a sum of Rs. 65627/- in the Wine Office. They were on a rickshaw and the bag containing cash was in the hand of Neetu. When the rickshaw reached near the place known as Bakara market, two boys wielding fire arms appeared and one of them (Naseem) started snatching bag containing cash from Neetu. When he was resisted, he exhorted his companion (appellant Pradeep) to open fire as Neetu was resisting to deliver the bag. On this Pradeep opened fire on Neetu who fell down from the rickshaw after receiving the fire arm injury and the two culprits i. e. Naseem and Pradeep ran away with the bag containing money. Prem P. W. I raised alarm and cried for help to chase the culprits. Sudesh P. W. 2 and Naresh also happened to be coming on another rickshaw behind the rickshaw of Prem. On the cry being raised by Prem they, as well as patrolling police party reached there in a jeep. The police instantly despatched the victim Neetu on the police jeep to the hospital along with a constable and the remaining police force of the police jeep gave chase to the culprits on foot. Similarly Prem, Sudesh and Naresh etc. and some other public men chased the two culprits. Both the culprits i. e. appellants Naseem and Pradeep ran towards mohalla Ladda Wala and entered the house of Wajid. Similarly Prem, Sudesh and Naresh etc. and some other public men chased the two culprits. Both the culprits i. e. appellants Naseem and Pradeep ran towards mohalla Ladda Wala and entered the house of Wajid. The police surrounded the house. Seeing this the two culprits opened fire on the police but incidentally no one was hurt. Before the appellants could reload the weapons the police force in pursuit made entry into the house. On seeing the police both of them ran to the roof and from there they jumped down in attempt to escape. Since it was a jump from the roof of the house the culprits could not get up to run away. Both of them were apprehended on the spot by the police in presence of witnesses and they disclosed their names as Naseem and Pradeep, who are the appellants. 3. From possession of Naseem the bag containing looted money and also containing daily report of sale of liquor and sale certificates were recovered. The police also recovered a twelve bore country made pistol with an empty shell found in the barrel of it and one live cartridge from his pocket. From the second appellant Pradeep also, the police recovered 12 bore country made pistol with empty cartridge shell in its barrel and two live cartridges, from his pocket. The police also found smell of gun powder having been fired from the barrel of gun recovered from Pradeep. The recovery memo Ex. ka-2 was prepared on the spot. The two appellants along with recovered articles were brought to the police station. The police station was only three furlongs away from the place where the money was looted. The place where the two appellants were apprehended was also at a distance of about 600 meters from the place of occurrence. 4. It is alleged that the first informant Prem had also given a chase to the culprits and in his presence both Pradeep and Naseem were apprehended by the police but as his brother had been rushed to the hospital because of injuries, he did not stay at the place of arrest and recovery to witness other formalities but proceeded to the hospital to see his brother. At the hospital he found that his brother Neetu had alfeady expired. At the hospital he found that his brother Neetu had alfeady expired. The informant Prem then got a written report prepared by Prithvi Singh Rana of his office and returned to police station to lodge the FIR which was registered as crime No. 353 of 1997 under section 394, 302 and 307 IPC. Since illicit fire arms were recovered two additional cases under section 25 Arms Act were also registered as crime No. 354 of 1997 and 355 of 1997. Since the two appellants had already been apprehended by the police in presence of Prem and they had disclosed their names and addresses and the informant and the witnesses were aware of the recovery made from them, the names of the appellants were disclosed in the FIR as accused. 5. Crime No. 353 of 1997 was investigated by ASI Sunil Dutt of police station Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar who after recording the statements of the witnesses and collecting the post-mortem report etc. inspected the place of occurrence, collected bloodstained and plain earth and subsequently submitted the charge-sheet. 6. The accused appellants denied the above allegations and claimed that they were picked up by police from their houses and falsely implicated in this case. 7. In the trial the prosecution examined five witnesses including Prem P. W. I an eye-witness and Sudesh P. W. 2 who is also eye-witness of the occurrence. Both of them supported the prosecution version wholly. Dr. V. P. Singh P. W. 3 had conducted post-mortem examination on the body of deceased Neetu on 12. 6. 1997 at 12. 30 p. m. and had found that Neetu had died about one day ago on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injury of the size 2. 5 cm. x 2 cm x chest cavity deep caused by fire arm. He had also found blackening and tattooing present all around the injury which was in, the area of 6. 5 cm x 6 cm. 8. Madan Lal Sharma P. W. 4 was examined as a witness of arrest of accused and recovery of money and his statement has been corroborated by Prem P. W. I and" Sudesh P. W. 2. Sunil Dutt P. W. 5 was examined as Investigating Officer. 9. 5 cm x 6 cm. 8. Madan Lal Sharma P. W. 4 was examined as a witness of arrest of accused and recovery of money and his statement has been corroborated by Prem P. W. I and" Sudesh P. W. 2. Sunil Dutt P. W. 5 was examined as Investigating Officer. 9. On the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution the Trial Court found the charges against the two accused i. e. Naseem and Pradeep as wholly established and accordingly both the appellants were convicted for committing the offence punishable under sections 302/34, 307/34 and 394 IPC. In addition to this, appellant Naseem was further convicted for the offence punishable under section 411 IPC. 10. We have heard Sri P. N. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant Pradeep and Sri V. M. Zaidi, learned Advocate for the appellant Naseem. Sri Pranav Krishna, learned AGA has argued on behalf of the State. The entire evidence on record has been considered by us in the light of arguments raised by the two sides. 11. Sri Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant Pradeep argued that the informant Prem P. W. I had not seen the occurrence and that he was called subsequently and was made to lodge FIR which was ante timed. In support of this he submitted firstly that the memo of arrest and recovery Ex. ka-2 does not show the informant as a witness, secondly that in the inquest report the informant was not a witness, and thirdly that the inquest report shows that FIR was lodged by Prithvi Singh Rana. After examining this argument of Sri Mishra in the light of the circumstances of the case, we do not find substance in the argument. It is to be kept in mind that the incident took place at 10. 30 a. m. and FIR was lodged at 11. 30 a. m. The deceased was carrying a bag containing big amount of money and therefore presence of some body else accompanying him with security point of view was very probable. The place of occurrence was hardly 600 meters from the place where the culprits were caught. The evidence clearly shows that when the informant was raising alarm, Sudesh P. W. 2 and Naresh, arriving from behind also reached there, and incidentally the police patrolling party was also there with a good number of police personnel therein. The place of occurrence was hardly 600 meters from the place where the culprits were caught. The evidence clearly shows that when the informant was raising alarm, Sudesh P. W. 2 and Naresh, arriving from behind also reached there, and incidentally the police patrolling party was also there with a good number of police personnel therein. It has come in the evidence that within a few minutes the police constable under the instruction of police officer in the jeep rushed the victim Neetu on jeep to the hospital. The informant at that time was chasing the culprits as was being done by members of the police force of the patrolling party as well as public persons including Sudesh and Naresh. Since the two appellants Naseem and Pradeep were apprehended by the police within a few minutes of incident in presence of Prem and also because his brother Neetu had already been shifted to the hospital, it was quite natural and probable for Prem not to waste further time at the place of arrest to become a witness of the preparation of memo of arrest and it was very natural for him to save time and rush to the hospital to find out the welfare of his brother Neetu. This statement of Prem P. W. I given before the Court appears to be very logical and probable therefore, we accept the same. In these circumstances if he has not signed the memo of arrest and recovery as a witness, it can not be inferred that he had not witnessed the occurrence and was not there. 12. P. W. I has further stated that from the place of arrest and recovery, he reached the hospital within 20 to 25 minutes and there he found that his brother Neetu had already expired. That being the position there was no point for him to stay back at the hospital where subsequently inquest was performed by Sri Taj Mohammad S. I. Kotwali Muzaffarnagar. In these circumstances the absence of first informant in the list of witnesses of inquest would not lead to any adverse inference and is well explained. 13. Prem P. W. I had deposed in the Court that after he found his brother Neetu in the hospital having died, he returned to his office where he got a written report scribed by Prithvi Singh Rana who was working in his office. 13. Prem P. W. I had deposed in the Court that after he found his brother Neetu in the hospital having died, he returned to his office where he got a written report scribed by Prithvi Singh Rana who was working in his office. The written report Ex. Ka-1 shows that Prithvi Singh Rana had signed on the right side of the paper at the conclusion of written report at a place where normally the person lodging an FIR should sign. The informant signed towards left side of the signature of Prithvi Singh Rana. In these circumstances if the police officer holding inquest by mistake noted the name of Prithvi Singh Rana as a person lodging the report, it would not give inference to the conclusion that FIR was ante timed or Prem P. W. I had not seen the occurrence. 14. In fact, arrest of the two appellants so prompt and so close to the place of occurrence, by itself lends very strong force to the prosecution story that they were chased by the police party and public witnesses. That being so when the police and other witnesses were available, there was no need to the investigating agency to ante time the FIR or to add Prem as a witness if he had not seen the occurrence. 15. The testimony of Prem has been fully supported by the testimony of Sudesh P. W. 2 who also worked in some other liquor shop and was in a rickshaw incidentally moving behind the rickshaw of Prem. He knew the informant and the deceased from before. He had seen the occurrence of snatching of Neetus bag containing cash and firing by Pradeep. He also fully corroborated the prosecution story with regard to instant arrival of police patrolling party on a jeep and chase being given to the culprit appellants by police and public men including witnesses and arrest as well as recovery of cash etc. in the manner as disclosed by the prosecution. As mentioned earlier, the testimony of Madan Lal Sharma P. W. 4 who was in the police party making arrest and recovery, has also corroborated their statements. 16. We have not found any thing material on the record to render the testimony of prosecution witnesses doubtful in any manner. 17. in the manner as disclosed by the prosecution. As mentioned earlier, the testimony of Madan Lal Sharma P. W. 4 who was in the police party making arrest and recovery, has also corroborated their statements. 16. We have not found any thing material on the record to render the testimony of prosecution witnesses doubtful in any manner. 17. Sri Mishra and Sri Zaidi, learned Counsel for the appellants then argued that there was no common intention to cause death and therefore the two appellants should not have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC The argument does not convince us. The manner in which, in broad day light, the offence of robbery was committed by the two appellants and the fact that both of them were carrying fire arm and ammunition and on being exhorted by one the other opened fire clearly show that they had common intention of causing death and death was caused although their main object was to commit robbery and they may not have killed any one if they had succeeded in snatching away the money bag and running from the place of occurrence without any obstruction. Their preparation for committing robbery i. e. both of them carrying fire arm and ammunition, moving together, participating in the robbery and firing by one on the exhortation of other leaves no doubt in our mind that there was also common intention to cause death or at least to cause such bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution evidence with regard to causing hurt in committing robbery i. e. offence punishable under section 394 IPC, murder under section 302/34 IPC as well as attempt to commit murder under section 307/34 IPC is wholly reliable. The two culprits were armed with fire arms and ammunitions. They were chased by police and public. Their opening fire on the persons chasing them is also wholly probable and prosecution evidence to that effect is reliable. Their appeals with regard to conviction and sentence under these sections are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The two culprits were armed with fire arms and ammunitions. They were chased by police and public. Their opening fire on the persons chasing them is also wholly probable and prosecution evidence to that effect is reliable. Their appeals with regard to conviction and sentence under these sections are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. We are, however, of the opinion that in view of conviction of Naseem under section 394 IPC, his separate conviction under section 411 IPC was unnecessary and unwarranted because the recovery of the stolen property was in continuation of the commission of the offence under section 394 IPC. His conviction under section 411 IPC and sentence passed therein are, therefore, set aside. 18. With the aforesaid modification, both the appeals (Crl. Appeal No. 284 of 2001 and Crl. Appeal No. 464 of 2001) are dismissed. The judgment and order of the Trial Court convicting both the appellants under sections 302/34, 307/34 and 394/34 and the sentences passed against them for these offences are maintained. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the Trial Court. .