JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal. J:- This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.738-DB of 2002 filed by the accused-appellants (herein referred as ‘the accused’) against conviction; Criminal Appeal No. 885-DB of 2002 by the State for enhancement of sentence and Criminal Revision No.1884 of 2002 by the complainant for enhancement of sentence and also to pay compensation. 2. The old rivalry, due to the murder of Zile Singh son of Amar Singh son of Kishana Ram i.e. kin of the accused Balwant Singh and Karam Singh, allegedly at the hands of Tek Chand accused became the cause of murder of Tek Chand and Nand Lal sons of the complainant Jai Pal (herein referred as ‘the complainant’) on the morning of 16.6.1997. Consequently, the accused were tried and convicted vide judgment dated 26.8.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and sentenced as under:- All the accused persons U/s 148 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each. U/s 302/149 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each. Balwant Singh U/s 27 of Arms Act: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.250/-. 3. Amar Singh had two sons namely Karam Singh and Balwant Singh (both accused). Rajbir and Gurmail Singh are the sons of Karam Singh accused and Rajesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar are the sons of Ralwant Singh accused. They all are the residents of village Mercheri, Police Station Babian, District Kurukshetra. 4. In the year 1991, Zile Singh son of Amar Singh son of Kishana resident of village Mercheri was murdered, for which Tek Chand deceased was arrayed as an accused. Ultimately, he was acquitted. However, the complainant and his sons Tek Chand and Nand Lal (both deceased) were not on speaking terms with the family of Karam Singh and the members of the family of Amar Singh used to have grudge against them. 5. On 16.6.1997, in the early morning, Tek Chand and Nand Lal had gone to irrigate their field with the help of tractor for sowing of paddy. Soon thereafter, at about 7.30 a.m. The complainant also followed them and when he reached near his land, he saw Balwant Singh had stopped the tractor and a motor cycle in front of his tube-well on the road. Soon thereafter, at about 7.30 a.m. The complainant also followed them and when he reached near his land, he saw Balwant Singh had stopped the tractor and a motor cycle in front of his tube-well on the road. All the six accused persons and one Sanjiv (a juvenile facing trial before the Juvenile Justice Board), went towards their tube-well. Rajbir and Gurmail Singh were armed with cutters (an instrument for cutting sugarcane), Balwant Singh armed with 12 bore DBBL gun, Ashok Kumar and Rajesh Kumar armed with gandasis and Sanjiv Kumar armed with lathi, attacked his son Tek Chand and Nand Lal. Balwant Singh fired 2-3 shots from his gun . injuring Tek Chand in his head and chest, resultantly, Tek Chand fell down. Then, all the remaining five accused caused injuries to his son Tek Chand with their respective weapons. They also caused injuries to Narid Lal. Rajbir inflicted a cutter blow to Nand Lal whereupon, he started running in order to escape. However, he was’ over powered by the six accused­ appellants and Sanjiv Kumar accused in the field of Sumer Chand which was at a distance of 1-¼ killa from his tube-well. All the accused except accused Balwant Singh waylaid him and caused injuries with their respective weapons. Balwant Singh exhorted his companions to leave Nand Lal for him, and then he fired 2-3 shots with his gun at Nand Lal in his chest and neck, whereupon he also fell down. Nand Lal was caused injuries by the other accused persons also. Besides the complainant, his son in law Jagmal Singh and Mihan Singh had also seen the occurrence. Sanjiv Kumar accused (a juvenile) ran towards the tube-well of the complainant and drove his tractor and ran over the same on the head of Tek Chand. On hearing hue and cry raised by the complainant, the accused tried to attack him but he started running towards his village through the fields and concealed himself in sunflower crop of Ram Kumar. The village people also gathered, consequently all the six accused and Sanjiv Kumar retraced and fled away on their motor cycle and tractor towards village Majri. The complainant and the witnesses went to the injured and found them dead. 6. After leaving Prem and Ram Kumar near the dead bodies, he set for lodging the FIR. The village people also gathered, consequently all the six accused and Sanjiv Kumar retraced and fled away on their motor cycle and tractor towards village Majri. The complainant and the witnesses went to the injured and found them dead. 6. After leaving Prem and Ram Kumar near the dead bodies, he set for lodging the FIR. SI Balbir Singh met him near Sunarian chowk and recorded his statement Ex.PB, on the basis of which FIR. Ex.PB/2 was recorded by ASI Maya Ram at about 10.40 a.m. and the special report - reached the Illaqa Magistrate on the same day at 3.40 p.m. SI Balbir Singh visited the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan and conducted inquest reports Ex.PA/4 and Ex.PD/1. Both the dead bodies were sent to L.N.J.P. Hospital Kurukshetra for postmortem examination. Thereafter on the directions of the higher authorities he handed over the investigation to Gurdial Singh, District Inspector who arrested the accused Balwant Singh, Karam Singh, Rajbir, Gurmail Singh, Ashok Kumar and Rajesh Kumar sons of Balwant Singh; got recovered weapons of offence; recorded statements of the witnesses and on completion of the investigation challan was presented against them. 7. On commitment, all the accused were charged under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC and the accused Balwant Singh was also charged under Section 27 of Arms Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. K.K. Chawla, Medical Officer, LNJP, Hospital, Kurukshetra (PW1), Jai Pal complainant (PW2), Jagmal Singh eye witness (PW3), Dr. G.D. Mittal, Medical Officer, LNJP, Hospital, Kurukshetra (PW4), HC Hukam Singh (PW5), C. Nand Kishore (PW6), ASI Sukhdev Singh (PW7), HC Ram Singh (PW8), SI Gulab Singh (PW9), Barkha Ram (PW10), HC Sita Ram (PW11), C. Prem Dass (PW12), C. Ramesh Chand (PW13), Gurmail Singh (PW14), Prem Kumar (PW15), Inspector Gurdial Singh Investigating Officer (PW16) and Inspector Balbir Singh (PW17). After giving up PWs Gian Singh, Prem Singh, Mihan Singh, Dr. S.N. Bansal, Shiv Dayal Chowkidar, Inspector Rajesh Kumar, Surta Ram, Ajaib Singh Director FSL, Madhuban, ASI Maya Ram and Sher Singh being unnecessary, and tendering into evidence ballistic report EX.PJ and report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PJ/1, the prosecution closed its evidence. 9. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. S.N. Bansal, Shiv Dayal Chowkidar, Inspector Rajesh Kumar, Surta Ram, Ajaib Singh Director FSL, Madhuban, ASI Maya Ram and Sher Singh being unnecessary, and tendering into evidence ballistic report EX.PJ and report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PJ/1, the prosecution closed its evidence. 9. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. Accused Balwant Singh took the plea that he was innocent and his gun Ex.P-95 was taken from his house along with the cartridges and the same was fired in order to project that it was used. No gun or cartridges were recovered at his instance. The remaining 5 accused persons also pleaded their false implication stating that it was a blind murder and they have been falsely implicated in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Hence this appeal. Arguments heard. Record perused. 10. There is strong motive for the accused to have revenge of the murder of Zile Singh brother of Karam Singh committed by Tek Chand deceased on 11.5.1991 for which Tek Charid was challaned and acquitted on 18.11.1993. There is lot of evidence that the relations between the parties were strained on account of the aforesaid crime allegedly committed by Tek Chand and they were not on speaking terms. There is an eye witness account in the shape of Jai Pal (PW2) and Jagmal Singh (PW3). They have given minute description of the events leading to the occurrence but Jagmal Singh (PW3) while stepping into the witness box has stated that he had gone to see his sister Anita one day prior to the occurrence and that Mihan Singh brother in law of Jai Pal had also come there. On 16.6.1997, at about 7.30 a.m. they had gone to answer the call of nature in the field of Jai Pal and they had seen Jai Pal going ahead of them. He has stated that Balwant Singh accused was going along with Karam Singh, Gurmail Singh, Ashok Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar in a tractor while Rajbir was on motor cycle. They were at a distance of about one killa ahead of Jai Pal. He has further stated that on reaching the field and after parking their vehicles they went to the tube-well of Jai Pal where Tek Chand and Nand Lal were already present. They were at a distance of about one killa ahead of Jai Pal. He has further stated that on reaching the field and after parking their vehicles they went to the tube-well of Jai Pal where Tek Chand and Nand Lal were already present. Accused Balwant Singh fired 2-3 shots at Tek Chand with his DBBL gun. After Tek Chand fell down, Karam Singh, Gurmail Singh and Rajbir inflicted injuries on his person with their respective weapons. Ashok Kumar and Rajesh Kumar gave gandasi blows on the person of Tek Chand when he was lying down. He has further stated that thereafter Rajbir all minute details. The prosecution then examined Dr. K.K. Chawla, inflicted a cutter blow on the person of Nand Lal, consequently, Nand Lal started running but they chased and waylaid him in the field of Sumer Chand at a distance of about 1-¼ killa. All the aforesaid accused, except Balwant Singh inflicted injuries on the person of Nand Lal with their respective weapons. Thereafter, Balwant Singh remarked that the accused should leave Nand Lal for him and then he fired 2-3 shots at him, killing Nand Lal at the spot. His testimony stands corroborated by Jai Pal (PW2) in Medical Officer, L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra (PW1), who being the member of the Board of Doctors, conducted autopsy on the body of Tek Chand son of Jai Pal at about 5.00 p.m. on 16.6.1997 and observed as under:- “General observations The length of the body was 5’-10’’ wearing a cream coloured shirt which was torn at place in front and soaked in blood and a pyjama of same colour. Body was well built and nourished. Eyes and mouth were closed. Rigor mortis was fully developed in the neck and all the four limbs. Clotted blood was present over face, head, left ear and front of chest and abdomen. Injuries 1. Lacerated wound 3 cms x 2 cms oval shaped over left temporal region 2 cms above left pinna.. Its margins were inverted, a rim of blackening was present 1 cm to 1.5 cms around the wound. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound. A hole was present in the underline bone and brain matter was contused and lacerated. Clotted blood was present. Its margins were inverted, a rim of blackening was present 1 cm to 1.5 cms around the wound. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound. A hole was present in the underline bone and brain matter was contused and lacerated. Clotted blood was present. On exploring the brain matter, a cylindrical shape hallow cork like piece (which was compressible) was found and four metallic pieces of irregular shape and sizes were removed from the skull cavity and the same were sealed in a vial. 2. Lacerated wound 5 cms x 1.5 cms on the right side of forehead underlying bone was visible and fractured. Clotted blood was present. 3. Lacerated wound 10 cms x 2.5 cms on the left side of forehead, medial end of the wound was extending from medial and of left eye brow and was extending laterally and backward on the left parietal region. Underlying bone was found to be fractured at multiple places and haemotoma was present. 4. Lacerated wound 3.5 cms x 2.5 cms on the left occipital region just to the left of mid line. Underlying bone was exposed and brain matter was coming out. Clotted blood was present. 5. Oval shaped wound with lacerated and inverted margins size 3 cms x 2.5 cms was present in front of lower part of sternum just to the right of mid line below the inter mammary line. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound. A rim of blackening 0.5 cm x 1 cm was present around the wound. Underlying bone was having a hole with irregular margins. Pericardium was found to be ruptured, ear was also ruptured and lacerated. Blood was present in both pleural cavities and lungs showed multiple lacerations. On exploration a cylindrical shaped hallow cork like material and four metallic pieces were found and removed from the wound which were sealed in a plastic vial. 6. Abrasion 2.5 cms x 2 cms in front of left shoulder. Infiltration of blood was present. 7. Abrasion 8 cms x 5 cms on the scapular region infiltration of blood was present.” 11. He described the injuries as sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further described that duration between the injuries and death was within few minutes and between death and postmortem was within 6 to 24 hours. 7. Abrasion 8 cms x 5 cms on the scapular region infiltration of blood was present.” 11. He described the injuries as sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further described that duration between the injuries and death was within few minutes and between death and postmortem was within 6 to 24 hours. He proved the autopsy report Ex.PA, diagram showing the seats of the injuries Ex.P All and Ex.P A/2. According to him, injuries Nos.1 to 5 are the result of gun shot and the remaining injuries could be the result of cutters Ex.P 13 to Ex.P 15 and gandasis Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 from the blunt portions. Regarding corroboration to the ocular version that the accused ran over the tractor on the head of Tek Chand, the doctor opined that injuries on the head being depressed fracture could be due to over running of the wheel of the tractor on the head. However, he stated that no impression or marks of the tyre on the head could be seen. 12. Dr. G.D. Mittal, Medical Officer L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra (PW-4) proved autopsy report Ex.PD/2 of Nand Lal. He stated that autopsy was conducted by him with the help of Dr. S.N. Bansal and Dr. K.K. Chawla on 16.6.1997 at 5.45 p.m. and observed as under:­ 1. A lacerated wound transversely placed on the left side of the neck, lateral aspect of size 3 ems x 1 cm muscle deep. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound. 2. A lacerated wound 2.5 cms x 1 cm on the left side of the neck just medial to injury No1. 3. 3. An abrasion 8 cms x 1 cm on the lateral aspect of right ­arm upper part. Infiltration of blood was present. 4. An incised wound transversely placed over the lower occipital region of size 15 cms x 5 cms bone deep. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound. 5. An incised wound transversely placed of size 5 cms x 2 cms over the back of the neck, 4 cms below the injury No.4. Clotted blood was present. 6. Multiple abrasion of various sizes over the lateral aspect of left upper part. 7. An abrasion transversely placed of size 15 cms x 0.5 cm on the left side of the abdomen extending up to back. Infiltration of blood was present. 8. Clotted blood was present. 6. Multiple abrasion of various sizes over the lateral aspect of left upper part. 7. An abrasion transversely placed of size 15 cms x 0.5 cm on the left side of the abdomen extending up to back. Infiltration of blood was present. 8. A lacerated wound 10 cms x 3 cms on the palmer aspect starting from right wrist up to hypothenar part of the right hand. Clotted blood was present. Wound was muscle deep. Muscles were crushed. 9. A lacerated wound transversely placed on the ulnar aspect of left forearm, 8 cms above the left wrist of the size of 4 cms x 1 cm bone deep. 10. A lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the palmar aspect of distal phalanx of right thumb. 11. An oval shaped wound of size 3 cms x 2 cms with inverted margins and lacerated on the left side of the chest in the upper part 5 cms above the left nipple. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound. It was going medially and backwards. A rim of blackening ­1 cm was present around the wound. Underlying 3rd rib was fractured. Pericardium was ruptured. Heart was lacerated. Left lung was lacerated. Left plural cavity was containing blood. On exploration cylindrical shaped hallow cork like material and three metallic pieces were recovered. These were sealed in a plastic vial. Left side of pleura was injured. Left lung pericardium, ear were lacerated. Stomach contained semi digested food material, small intestines containing chyme and gases, large intestines contained fecal matter and gases. Bladder contained small amount of urine. Liver and spleen were pale and healthy. All other organs were healthy.” 13. He further opined that injuries to heart and lungs were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time elapsed between injury and death was within few minutes, whereas, between death and postmortem was within 6 to 24 hours. He further opined that injury No.11 on the person of the deceased was the result of fire arm and injury No.5 could be the result of blows from the sharp side of any of the cutters Ex.P13 to Ex.P15 and gandasis Ex.P16 and Ex.P1 7, and the remaining injuries were possible from the blunt side of the cutlers and lathi portion of the gandasi. Further, the prosecution version finds support from the recovery of the weapons of offence from the accused. Inspector Gurdial Singh had interrogated accused Balwant Singh and got recovered 12 bore DBBL licenced gun, blood stained clothes (after washing) in pursuance of his statement under Section 21 of the Evidence Act from the house of the accused. He also interrogated the remaining accused and got recovered the weapons of offence in pursuance of their statements under Section 27 of the - Evidence Act. Statements of the accused Karam Singh, Gurmail Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Rajbir and Balwant Singh are Ex.PK, Ex.PK/1, Ex.PK/2, Ex.PK/3, Ex.PK/4, Ex.PK/5 and recovery memos are from EX.PL to Ex.PQ. Balwant Singh accused also got recovered tractor bearing No.HNQ-6791 and motor cycle Hero Honda bearing registration No.HR-01C-6172. 14. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is regarding delay in lodging the FIR, as a result of which some blemished and exaggerated version has come forth. The witnesses had been introduced and the accused were involved. 15. We do not find ourselves persuaded by the aforesaid arguments. The occurrence took place in the field of village Mercheri, the distance from the police station to village Mercheri is recorded as 7 kms. It has come in evidence that the Investigating Officer recorded statement of Jai Pal when he met him at Suneriha Chowk Babian at about 9.00 a.m. The FIR in this connection was recorded at 10.40 a.m. and it reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 3.40 p.m. on the next day. The complainant had travelled a distance of 5-½ kms, otherwise village of the witness JagmaI is about 11 kms. Their presence at the spot stand proved from the case diary maintained by the Investigating Officer. He has mentioned in the case diary of 16.7.1997 at about 10.30 a.m. that when he reached the place of occurrence, he found Jagmal Singh and Mihan Singh, both eye witnesses present there. In any case, non mentioning of their names in the inquest does not in any way falsify their presence at the spot. The purpose of the 11 inquest report is to record circumstances in which the person died, the situation and the location of the place where he had died. The Investigating Officer did not act in the abnormal manner. In any case, non mentioning of their names in the inquest does not in any way falsify their presence at the spot. The purpose of the 11 inquest report is to record circumstances in which the person died, the situation and the location of the place where he had died. The Investigating Officer did not act in the abnormal manner. He recorded the names of two persons i.e. Ram Kumar and Prem Chand in the inquest Ex.PA/4 of Tek Chand and Ex.PD/1 of Nand Lal. Even the inquest report also transpires that when SI Balbir Singh reached the spot, he saw Ram Kumar, Prem Singh, Antu Ram, Jagmal Singh residents of Rattan Dehra and Mihan Singh son of Munshi Ram resident of Madanpura and so many other persons at the spot. Some time must have been consumed in covering the distance by the complainant, recording the statement and sending the same to the police station, therefore, present case cannot be said to have been registered with some delay. 16. As regards the next contention that presence of PW Jagmal Singh is doubtful at the spot, it may be observed that Jagmal Singh while appearing in the witness box as PW-3 has stated that he had come one day earlier to the occurrence to see his sister, where he also met Mihan Singh their relative. They stayed there for a night. It is a matter of common experience that people in the countryside, early in the morning go in the open to answer the call of nature as no constructed toilets are found at their houses. The field of Jai Pal i.e. place of occurrence is at little distance across the road of village, therefore, after coming out of the house, when the witnesses were proceeding towards the field, they in all human probabilities were attracted towards the movements of the accused. Jagmal Singh (PW3) has specifically stated that he had come one day prior to the occurrence at the house of his sister and on 16.6.1997, at about 7.30 a.m. he and Mihan Singh had gone to answer the call of nature. They had also seen Jai Pal going ahead of them. Accused persons except accused Rajbir were seen, going on tractor, whereas, accused Rajbir was going on motor cycle. They had also seen Jai Pal going ahead of them. Accused persons except accused Rajbir were seen, going on tractor, whereas, accused Rajbir was going on motor cycle. Both the witnesses are consistent with regard to the fact that Nand Lal and Tek Chand had also left the house 1-¼ hours prior to their departure to the field. At the cost of repetition, we have discussed in detail that since names of the witnesses figure in the case diary, FIR, statement, inquest report, therefore, it would be difficult to belie the presence of these two witnesses at the spot. It is something different that the prosecution did not examine Mihan Singh but it is quality of evidence which weighs and not the quantity. The prosecution being the dominus lites of the case, was at liberty to examine the witnesses of its choice and to see if the witnesses so examined could be sufficient to support the prosecution case. It is also not uncommon that the village people after sowing season is over normally visit their relatives and spend a night or two for relaxing. Jagmal Singh (PW3) could not be called from his village to introduce him as a witness within such a small span of time. The photographic description of the place of occurrence and the circumstances leading to the occurrence as given by Jagmal Singh (PW3) leave no iota of doubt to deny his presence at the spot. He has categorically testified that “Nand Lal and Tek Chand were working at a distance of 3- ½ - 4 killa from the place where the accused parked their vehicles. All the accused after parking their vehicles went towards Nand Lal and Tek Chand walking and not running. None of them raised lalkara while proceeding towards them. The weapons in the hands of the accused were visible when they were going towards Nand Lal etc. Jai Pal was at a distance of 1 killa from the place where the accused parked their vehicles. This was a crow’s fly distance, otherwise by road the distance was somewhat more as there is a bend or turning in the road.” He has also given the description of the blows given by the accused persons. 17. We do not countenance the argument that had Jai Pal been present at the spot, then he could have come at the rescue of the deceased. 17. We do not countenance the argument that had Jai Pal been present at the spot, then he could have come at the rescue of the deceased. In this regard it may be observed that when the accused chased him, he started running and when he and Mihan Singh raised hue and cry, people gathered and the accused fled away. He has further testified that when Nand Lal tried to flee in order to escape, the accused chased him and waylaid him in the field of Sumer Chand, which was situated at a distance of 1-¼ killa then all the accused except Balwant Singh inflicted injuries on the person of Nand Lal with their respective weapons”. 18. We also do not countenance the argument that though Jagmal Singh and Mihan Singh were present at the spot, did not raise any hue and cry when both Tek Chand and Nand Lal being butchered is the circumstance going against them and especially that their presence is doubtful because it depends upon the mental state and the reaction of the witness to act being done in their presence. It has been observed in case State of Haryana vs. Ram Kishan, 2000 (1) RCR (Crl.) 1 that when two persons were present but did not intervene to save the lives of deceased persons. Their conduct was not unnatural. No inference can be drawn that they were not present. Individual reactions can vary from time to time and place to place. It was observed that basically self-preservation is a natural instinct. 19. We have thoroughly examined the statements of the eye witnesses as well as medical evidence Dr. K.K. Chawla (PW1) had conducted autopsy on the body of Tek Chand at about 5.00 p.m. According to him rigor mortis was fully developed in the neck and in all the four limbs. We are not convinced with this argument that as per medical evidence the occurrence might have taken place at about 2/3.00 a.m. and definitely before 5.00 a.m. as the rigor mortis sets in within 12 to 15 hours. It is equally settled that the rigor mortis is important factor to assess the time of death of the deceased. As per Dr. Parikh and Dr. It is equally settled that the rigor mortis is important factor to assess the time of death of the deceased. As per Dr. Parikh and Dr. Mishra, The Principles of Medical Jurisprudence, Medical and Forensic Science, DNA test and Toxicology, Third Edition, 2007, rigor mortis starts within 2 to 4 hours after the death and fully sets in within 16 to 24 hours and setting of rigor mortis starts from ­the upper limbs and it starts disappearing from lower limbs. Since the autopsy on the bodies were conducted at 5.00 p.m. and rigor mortis had not disappeared at the time when the postmortem examination was conducted, therefore, it would not be appropriate to say that the occurrence took place at the time and the manner as described by the prosecution. 20. Now coming to the injuries, the accused were armed with cutters, gandasis and fire arms. The deceased Tek Chand suffered as many as 7 injuries and his head was depressed with multiple fractures as described. The doctor has specifically opined that injuries No.1 and 5 on the body of Tek Chand could be possible as a result of fire arm, whereas the remaining injuries could be the result of cutters Ex.P13 to Ex.P15 and gandasis Ex.P 16 and Ex.P 17, if caused from the blunt side of the weapons. The doctor has further opined that possibility of head being depressed could be due to over running of the wheel of the tractor on the head of Tek Chand. Since it was intended act of running over the tyre of the tractor over the injured man, therefore, it was not necessary that the tyre marks were bound to come. The argument that none of the injuries No.1 to 7 could be the result of sharp edged weapon like cutters and gandasis is of no .1 consequence, in view of the report of Dr. K.K. Chawla (PW1) that the injuries could be caused with the blunt side of the aforesaid weapons. Both the witnesses have given minute details of the injuries caused by the accused. There are 11 injuries on the person of Nand Lal and Dr. G.D. Mittal (PW4) had also specifically stated that injury No.11 on the person of the deceased Nand Lal could be the result of gun fire. Both the witnesses have given minute details of the injuries caused by the accused. There are 11 injuries on the person of Nand Lal and Dr. G.D. Mittal (PW4) had also specifically stated that injury No.11 on the person of the deceased Nand Lal could be the result of gun fire. Injuries No.3 and 5 on his body could be the result of blows from the sharp side of the cutters Ex.P 13 to Ex.P 15 and gandasis Ex.P16 and Ex.P 17 and the rest of the injuries could be possible from the blunt side of the cutters Ex.P13 to Ex.P15 and lathi portion of the gandasi. The accused made rain of the blows causing 18 injuries on both the deceased, in that situation it was difficult to count individual injury which was given at the hands of the individual accused. However, participation by the individual accused as well as other accused have been duly explained in the substantive evidence given by them in the Court. 21. Much emphasis has been laid over another point that since some semi-digested food was found in the stomach, therefore, it was submitted that since the stomach starts working towards digestion after 2 to 4 hours of taking of meals, therefore, the occurrence appears to have taken place sometime in the night and not at 7.30 a.m. as stated by the prosecution. 22. Having deliberated over the matter, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the aforesaid argument. It was summer season. The people in the countryside with a view to work in the fields for long time take some sort of meals before going to their fields. Even if they had taken tea and small snacks at about 5 or 5.30 a.m. and they left at 6.30 a.m. the possibility of presence of semi digested food material in the stomach was not abnormal. It is also well settled by now that even after a man dies, the stomach continues to work for some time after death, therefore, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that presence of semi -digested food in the stomach could prove that the occurrence took place during night and not at the time as stated by the prosecution. 23. 23. As regards science with regard to digestion of the food, chapter XXVII, page 231 5th of the Medical Jurisprudence by Jhala & Raju Edition, it has opined as under:- “The digestion of food is considered to be the data which guides the medical officer in arriving at the opinion as to time of death. But this is less reliable. Digestion is a series of chemical process, reactions of the digestive juice on the food. Secretion of the juice or its production being a vital process stops with death. But the reaction of the juice on the food can go on as long as there is juice in the alimentary canal, even after death. Further digestion varies in different individuals even with the same materials, even in same individual at different time. With incomplete digestion no reliable opinion can be given on medical basis.” Therefore, the observation of the doctor with regard to the time of death on the basis of semi-digested food is just a mere opinion and the same cannot be preferred over the ocular evidence of the eye witnesses as held in Allrakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 (1) RCR (Crl.) 748 and State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal and another, 1988 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal).928. 24. JhaIa & Kaju’s Medical Jurisprudence, 6th Edition, in Chapter XXVIII, indicates time required for digestion of different foods, out of which duration of digestion of some foods is 1 hour to 4 hours. The chart showing the duration, as recorded in Jhala & Raju’s Medical Jurisprudence, at page No. 281, is reproduced as under:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name of food How cooked Time ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Pigs feet (pickled) Boiled 1 hour 2. Tripe (pickled) Boiled 1 hour 3. Eggs (whipped) Raw Broiled 1 hour 4. Barley soup Boiled 1 hour 35 minutes 5. Milk Boiled 2 hours 6. Beef liver Raw 2 hours 7. Eggs Boiled 2 hours 8. Cod (cured, dry) Raw 2 hours 9. Milk Boiled 2 hours 15 minutes 10. Turkey eggs Roasted 2 hours 25 minutes 11. Turkey Roasted 2 hours 30 minutes 12. Suckling pig Broiled 2 hours 30 minutes 13. Lamb Fricasseed 2 hours 30 minutes 14. Chicken Baked 2 hours 45 minutes 16. Beef Boiled 2 hours 45 minutes 17. Oysters Raw 2 hours 45 minutes 18. Eggs Soft boiled 2 hours 55 minutes 19. Beaf steak Grilled 3 hours 20. Turkey Roasted 2 hours 30 minutes 12. Suckling pig Broiled 2 hours 30 minutes 13. Lamb Fricasseed 2 hours 30 minutes 14. Chicken Baked 2 hours 45 minutes 16. Beef Boiled 2 hours 45 minutes 17. Oysters Raw 2 hours 45 minutes 18. Eggs Soft boiled 2 hours 55 minutes 19. Beaf steak Grilled 3 hours 20. Mutton Boiled 3 hours 21. Bean soup Boiled 3 hours 22. Chicken soup Boiled 3 hours 23. Oysters Roasted 3 hours 24. Pork steak Grilled 3 hours 15 minutes 25. Flounder Fried 3 hours 15 minutes 26. Cheese (old, strong) Raw 3 hours 30 minutes 28. Eggs Boiled 3 hours 30 minutes 29. Salmon (salted) Hard boiled 3 hours 30 minutes 30. Fowls Boiled 3 hours 30 minutes 31. Soup, beef, vegetables & bread Boiled 4 hours 32. Heart Fried 4 hours 33. Marrow bone soup Boiled 4 hours 34. Pork (recently salted) Boiled 4 hours 35. Veal Fried 4 hours 15 minutes 36. Wild duck Roasted 4 hours 30 minutes 37. Mutton suet Boiled 4 hours 30 minutes 38. Pork Roasted 5 hours 15 minutes 39. Beef suet Boiled 5 hours 30 minutes 40. Rice Boiled 1 hour 41. Bajri Bread 2 hours 42. Jowari Bread 2 hours 30 minutes 43. Apples (sweet, mellow) Raw 1 hour 30 minutes 44. Sago Boiled 1 hour 45 minutes 45. Tapioca Boiled 2 hours 46. Barley Boiled 2 hours 47. Apples (sour) Raw 2 hours 48. Pod beans Boiled 2 hours 30 minutes 49. Potatoes (Irish) Roasted 2 hours 30 minutes 50. Cabbage (head) Raw 2 hours 30 minutes 51. Apple dumpling Boiled 3 hours 52. Corn cake Baked 3 hours 53. Corn bread Baked 3 hours 15 minutes 54. Carrots Boiled 3 hours 15 minutes 55. Bread (wheat fresh) Baked 3 hours 30 minutes 56. Turnips Boiled 3 hours 30 minutes 57. Potatoes (Irish) Boiled 3 hours 30 minutes 58. Green corn and beans Boiled 3 hours 45 minutes 59. Beets Boiled 3 hours 45 minutes 60. Cabbage Boiled 4 hours. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25. On analysis of the aforesaid chart, in the absence of any evidence as to what sort of food the deceased took before going to the fields, it is difficult to say that the same could not be digested within one hour or more. Beets Boiled 3 hours 45 minutes 60. Cabbage Boiled 4 hours. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25. On analysis of the aforesaid chart, in the absence of any evidence as to what sort of food the deceased took before going to the fields, it is difficult to say that the same could not be digested within one hour or more. Therefore, duration of digestion and presence of semi digested food in the intestines simpliciter could not be said to be sufficient to determine the time of incident. 26. In the instant case, two witnesses having seen 7 accused persons armed with fire arms, cutters and gandasis could not dare to react. It is often seen that some times witnesses on seeing the occurrence become stunned; some try to escape concealing themselves; some try to intervene and come at the rescue, but no body dares to intervene while putting their own lives at peril. 27. As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that though Jai Pal (PW2) and Jagmal (PW3) have categorically stated about the fire arm injuries given to Nand Lal and Tek Chand but none of them have stated about loading or unloading of the gun, it may be observed that it cannot be said to be a material discrepancy because photographic picturisation is not possible from the human mind. The complainant Jai Pal (PW2) has categorically stated that accused Balwant Singh fired 2-3 shots from his DBBL gun which hit on the head and chest of Tek Chand and thereafter the said accused fired 2-3 shots from his gun at Nand Lal which hit on his chest and neck. Even otherwise, such discrepancy could not create doubt over the prosecution version in view of the fact that use of the double barrel gun by the accused Balwant Singh stands established from the ocular version as well as medical evidence and also from the evidence of the Investigating Officer who recovered empty ­ cartridges from the place of occurrence and recovery of double barrel gun in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accused and also from the report Ex.PJ of Forensic Science Laboratory Madhuban (Haryana). Similarly, we also do not find ourselves persuaded by the argument that there is discrepancy in the site plan from where the gun shots were fired by the accused and the medical/expert evidence. Similarly, we also do not find ourselves persuaded by the argument that there is discrepancy in the site plan from where the gun shots were fired by the accused and the medical/expert evidence. Reliance if any can be placed on the judgments Karnail Singh and others vs. The State of Punjab, 1971 Crl.L.J. 1463 (AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2119) and Mithilesh Upadhyay etc. vs. State of Bihar, 1997(2) Recent C.R. 747. 28. As regards interested witnesses, it is true that both the, witnesses being father and brother-in-law are related to the deceased. Their mere relationship with the deceased could not be equated with a biased, partial or interested witnesses so as to discard their testimony when their presence was otherwise probable at the scene of occurrence Even the relative witnesses would not substitute the false persons in place of real culprits. All that necessary was to scrutinize their evidence with more than ordinary manner and circumference with reference to the part or role assigning to each of the accused and the Court should come at guard so as to scrutinize their statements so minutely as to rule out any false implication and an effort should have been made to sift the chaff from the grain and accept what appears to be true and reject the rest. While putting the testimony of these two witnesses on the aforesaid parameters, we are unable to elicit anything to find fault with their reliability, credibility or trustworthiness. In this connection we may place reliance over the judgment delivered in case Swaran Singh. vs. State of Punjab, 1976 Supreme Court 2304, wherein the Apex Court observed as under : “Moreover, it is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted witness or that of approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the Courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with a little more care. Once that approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of the interested witnesses has a ring of truth, such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration.” Again in case State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Manohar Lal. Once that approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of the interested witnesses has a ring of truth, such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration.” Again in case State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Manohar Lal. AIR, 1981 Supreme Court 2073, the Apex Court observed as under: “This court has laid down in several cases that while evidence of interested eye-witness may be approached with a little caution but it cannot be discarded only on the ground of being of a partisan nature. The High Court should have appraised the testimony of the witnesses on its intrinsic merits so determine its credibility.” 29. No doubt, Jai Pal had a grievance against the accused as his son Tek Chand (deceased) was implicated for the murder of kin of the accused but the same cannot be said to be sufficient reason to discard their testimony on that ground. It is well settled by now that where enmity is the motive for committing the crime, then testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are relation or inimical witnesses. While discussing reliability and credibility of an inimical witness, the Apex Court in case Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (3) RCR (Criminal) 722, observed as under: “The admitted position of law is that enmity is double edged weapon which can be a motive for the crime as also the ground for false implication of the accused persons. In case of inimical witnesses, the courts are required to scrutinize their testimony with anxious care to find out whether their testimony inspires confidence to be acceptable notwithstanding the existence of enmity. Where enmity is proved to be the motive for the commission of the crime, the accused cannot urge that despite proof of the motive of the crime, the witnesses proved to be inimical should not be relied upon. Bitter animosity held to be a double edged weapon may be instrumental for false involvement or for the witnesses inferring and strongly believing that the crime must have been committed by the accused. Such possibility has to be taken in mind while, evaluating the prosecution witnesses regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime. Bitter animosity held to be a double edged weapon may be instrumental for false involvement or for the witnesses inferring and strongly believing that the crime must have been committed by the accused. Such possibility has to be taken in mind while, evaluating the prosecution witnesses regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime. Testimony of eye witnesses which is otherwise convincing and consistent, cannot be discarded simply on the ground that the deceased were related to the eye witnesses or previously there were some disputes between the accused and the deceased or the witnesses. The existence of animosity between the accused and the witnesses may, in some cases, give rise to the possibility of the witnesses exaggerating the role of some of the accused or trying to rope in more persons as accused persons for the commission of the crime. Such possibility is required to be ascertained on the facts of each case. However, the mere existence of enmity in this case, particularly when it is alleged as a motive for the commission of the crime cannot be made a basis to discard or reject the testimony of the eye witnesses, the deposition of whom is otherwise consistent and convincing.” 30. The crux of the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Apex Court is to lay much stress to scrutinize the testimony of the eye witnesses with due care and caution where clement of enmity is involved in the crime and also in order to sift the chaff from grain and reach the truth. The Courts should take care that the perpetrators of the crime should not to make the enmity as a shield and an instrument to put a curtain over the prosecution version and nip the crime in the bud. 31. While adverting to the facts and circumstances of the present to case, Since father and brother in law of the deceased and Mihan Singh, Jagmal Singh having slept over the night, in all human probabilities, were to go to their field to answer the call of the nature which was quite near the village vicinity, therefore, no ring of falsehood could imputed to those probabilities. Neither these witnesses could be dubbed as tainted one nor chance witnesses as their presence at the spot is otherwise established. Neither these witnesses could be dubbed as tainted one nor chance witnesses as their presence at the spot is otherwise established. No strong reason to disbelieve their testimonies has been put forth except the bald argument that they are relatives and inimical towards the accused. Further, no inference could be drawn for mere failure of the prosecution to examine any independent witness if on scrutiny of the their statements convinces the mind of the court with regard to their reliability and trustworthiness. On scrutiny of the aforesaid witnesses we find that their testimonies are short of any falsity, concoction, exaggeration or untruthfulness. No plausible defence has been led by the accused in order to prove their innocence. They brutally murdered two sons while leaving their wives, children so as their old father languishing to die in their desertion for rest of their life, therefore, in such ghastly crimes we may not proceed against them for awarding capital punishment for want of any such prayer on behalf of the State, but we could essentially observe to deal with such offence with stem hands. For the foregoing reasons, finding no merits in both the appeals as well as in the revision petition, the same are hereby dismissed. --------------------