JUDGMENT Rajan Gupta, J.:- The accused have preferred the present appeal against the judgment, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby all of them have been convicted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) as well as under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. All the accused have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default whereof to further undergo RI for a period of two years. All the accused have also been sentenced for offences under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default whereof to further undergo RI for a period of one year. The accused have also been convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default whereof to further undergo RI for a period of six months. 2. Another sentence imposed upon the accused is for committing offence under Section 148 IPC, for which they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of three months. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. The case came up to be registered on the statement of one Hari Singh, who stated that he had been working as a driver with one Bhup Singh son of Ram Partap Bishnoi, resident of village Badopal for last about ten years. On 3.10.1990 at about 9.30 A.M., Bhup Singh had put Jeep No.DNC-9324 at his disposal and deputed him to pick up Ami Lal son of Harphool, Bishnoi, a relative of Bhup Singh as he had to go to some place. He, therefore, reached the Dhani in the field of Ami Lal and stayed there for approximately one hour, whereafter Ami Lal and his brother Chhotu Ram sat in the jeep. Another person Sant Lal son of Sohan Lal Bishnoi, who was present in the Dhani, told Hari Singh that he also wanted to go to village Badopal. Thus he also sat in the jeep. All of them started for village Badopal through village Bhana through a ‘Katcha’ path from the Dhani. Another person Sant Lal son of Sohan Lal Bishnoi, who was present in the Dhani, told Hari Singh that he also wanted to go to village Badopal. Thus he also sat in the jeep. All of them started for village Badopal through village Bhana through a ‘Katcha’ path from the Dhani. When they reached about one killa away from the cremation ground of village Bhana, a white gypsy of Jee Ram was seen parked in the bushes. Hari Singh stopped the jeep there. All of a sudden, Jee Ram son of Ranjit Bishnoi, Pirthi and Ram Singh sons of Sahi Ram, caste Bishnoi, Mahabir Singh son of Richhpal Bishnoi and Ram Singh alias Ramdhan son of Ram Karan Bishnoi emerged from the bushes holding guns and rifles in their hands. Ami Lal was sitting on the front seat along with Hari Singh. Jee Ram fired a shot at Ami Lal. Jee Ram also raised a Lalkara that they would not allow Ami Lal to escape. He fired another shot, which hit the tyre of the jeep. Thereafter, all these five persons proceeded towards the jeep firing from their respective weapons. Jee Ram fired another shot, which hit Ami Lal. Ram Singh brother of Pirthi fired a shot which hit Sant Lal. Hari Singh and others jumped out of the jeep. Pirthi fired a shot aiming at Hari Singh but he hid behind the jeep. Thereafter, all the persons i.e. Hari Singh, Ami Lal etc. ran away in different directions. Pirthi fired another shot, which hit Hari Singh on the back of his left shoulder. The assailants, however, kept on firing. The assailants overpowered Ami Lal and fired number of shots at him. While running, Hari Singh looked back and noticed that assailants were taking Ami Lal, who was dead, in their gypsy. Hari Singh thereafter, met Pirthi Singh son of Ram Pratap, who took him in Jeep to Civil Hospital, Adampur and got him admitted there. According to Hari Singh, the grudge related to ten years back, when Ami Lal son of Harphool had committed murder of Bhagi Ram brother of Jee Ram. The present incident was in retaliation to the said occurrence. 4. After Hari Singh was admitted in the hospital, a ruqa was sent by the doctor with MLR No.AKG-93/90 dated 3.10.1990 with regard to admission of Hari Singh in the hospital. The present incident was in retaliation to the said occurrence. 4. After Hari Singh was admitted in the hospital, a ruqa was sent by the doctor with MLR No.AKG-93/90 dated 3.10.1990 with regard to admission of Hari Singh in the hospital. Thereafter, Ran Singh SI/SHO, Police Station Adampur along with certain police officials proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of Hari Singh. The same was read over to him, who thereafter affixed his thumb impression thereon. 5. A case was, thus, registered under Section 302, 307/149 & 201 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. SI Ran Singh, who proceeded to the spot, prepared a site plan Ex. PE. It appears that in the meanwhile Chhotu Ram, younger brother of Ami Lal, who had hid himself in the fields when firing was going on, met SI Ran Singh. S.I. Ran Singh, thus, prepared a site-plan Ex.PE as per information given by Chhotu Ram. 47 empties, out of which 45 were empty cartridges of .12 bore, one missed cartridge of .12 bore and one empty cartridge of .315 bore, were found at the spot, which were taken into possession vide Ex.P2 to P48 and memo Ex. PS was prepared in this regard. The pellets were also taken into possession and recovery memo Ex.PT was prepared to this effect. The jeep bearing registration No. DNC-9324, which was found on the scene of occurrence, was taken into possession and recovery memo Ex.PS was prepared. SI Ran Singh also took the bloodstained earth and prepared the recovery memo Ex.PV. At about 4.15 P.M., Sant Lal, who was another occupant of the jeep, reached the Civil Hospital in an injured condition. He was examined by Dr. Ajay Kumar Goel. The said doctor intimated the police about Sant Lal and also that one injury had been found on his person. The statement of Chhotu Ram was recorded on 3.10.1990 by Ran Singh, SI/SHO. The police started investigation and was able to lay its hands on Ram Singh son of Sahi Ram on 3.12.1990. He was interrogated by the police. His disclosure statement Ex.PZ was recorded. Thereafter, Mahabir was also arrested on 19.12.1990. He also made a disclosure statement, which is Ex.PAA and on his statement arms and ammunition was recovered. Regarding this, a separate case was registered. Another accused Ram Singh son of Ram Karan was arrested by the police on 28.12.1990. He was interrogated by the police. His disclosure statement Ex.PZ was recorded. Thereafter, Mahabir was also arrested on 19.12.1990. He also made a disclosure statement, which is Ex.PAA and on his statement arms and ammunition was recovered. Regarding this, a separate case was registered. Another accused Ram Singh son of Ram Karan was arrested by the police on 28.12.1990. He was subjected to interrogation on 30.12.1990. On his disclosure statement, one country made pistol and three cartridges were recovered. A separate case was registered regarding this. Rest of the accused were also arrested later on. 6. The accused Jee Ram and Pirthi were arrested after quite some time, even after they were declared proclaimed offenders. 7. All the accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 148/302/149 and 307/149 as well as 201 IPC, vide order dated 6th April, 1994. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses to prove its case. The defence took up the stand that they had been falsely implicated due to old enmity. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused took the same stand that they were innocent and they had been falsely implicated. 9. We have heard Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Advocate and Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. 10. Mr. Baldev Singh has mainly argued that there were three eye-witnesses to the occurrence, namely Hari Singh, Sant Lal and Chhotu Ram. While Hari Singh had not supported the prosecution version, Sant Lal had been given up by the prosecution as won over. Only Chhotu Ram had fully supported the prosecution case. According to the counsel, it was note worthy that two of these i.e. Hari Singh and Sant Lal were injured witnesses and had yet not supported the prosecution version. The learned counsel emphasized that body of deceased Ami Lal was not found and, therefore, it could not be said what was the cause of death. In the absence of the same, it was difficult to conclude that Ami Lal had died because of gun shot injuries. The counsel has attacked the statement of Chhotu Ram PW9, star witness of the prosecution, on the ground that he was an interested witness being brother of deceased Ami Lal. In the absence of the same, it was difficult to conclude that Ami Lal had died because of gun shot injuries. The counsel has attacked the statement of Chhotu Ram PW9, star witness of the prosecution, on the ground that he was an interested witness being brother of deceased Ami Lal. His presence on the scene was doubtful, firstly due to the reason that he had no purpose, whatsoever, to accompany Ami Lal and others in the jeep; secondly, his version that he had hid himself in the fields when firing was going on, was not believable as there was no place to hide in the fields. Thirdly, he had also not forgotten the enmity with the accused and could depose falsely due to that. Learned counsel raised an argument that there was deep-rooted enmity between the parties which can be a motive to commit the crime but it can also be a motive for falsely implicating the accused. Lastly, the counsel also argued that occurrence was of 3rd October, 1990 and the accused were arrested one by one at subsequent dates giving rise to possibility of false implication. 11. Mr. Randhawa, Addl. Advocate General, on the other hand, vehemently argued that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond doubt, unimpeacheable evidence has been brought on record to prove that the accused had committed this dastardly crime. The learned State counsel has submitted that Hari Singh had admitted the presence of Chhotu Ram at the scene of crime and Chhotu Ram’s statement left nothing to imagination. As regards the fact that Chhotu Ram had hid himself when the firing was going on, the learned State counsel submitted that Chhotu Ram had no option but to hide himself as he was brother of Ami Lal and due to old enmity, he would also have been killed by the accused. 12. Another contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding delay in registration of FIR, has been rebutted by the learned State counsel by stating that the occurrence is of 11.25 A.M. and the moment, a ruqa was received regarding admission of Hari Singh in the Civil Hospital in an injured condition, an FIR was registered and police came into action. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any delay in registration of FIR. 13. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any delay in registration of FIR. 13. We have carefully examined the evidence of Chhotu Ram PW9, one of the eye witnesses to the occurrence. He has given a vivid account of the entire sequence of events and has fully supported the prosecution case. The defence has not been able to make any dent in his deposition during cross-examination. He has clearly stated that on 3rd October, 1990, he along with Ami Lal, Sant Lal and Hari Singh were going from village Bhodia Bishnoian to village Badopal in a jeep bearing registration No.DNC-9324. When they were crossing the cremation ground near village Bhana, a white gypsy was seen standing near the cremation ground. Hari Singh stopped the jeep. Five accused i.e. Jee Ram, Ram Singh son of Sahi Ram, Ram Singh son of Ram Karan, Pirthi and Mahabir, emerged from the bushes. Jee Ram was armed with a rifle whereas other accused were armed with guns. All the accused started firing on the jeep. A shot hit Ami Lal, who was sitting on the front seat. The occupants of the jeep started running in different direction to save their lives. Hari Singh and Sant Lal also received gun shot injuries. However, they were able to run away from the spot. He further stated that he concealed himself in the nearby crops and witnessed the entire occurrence from there. Even when all occupants of the Jeep, except Ami Lal, had run away, the accused came near the jeep and fired at Ami Lal from a close range. Thereafter, they lifted the dead-body of Ami Lal, put the same in the gypsy and sped away from the spot. The police came to the spot at about 3.00 P.M. On the basis of his information, a site-plan of the place of recovery was prepared and 47 empties were recovered, out of which 45 were empty cartridges of .12 bore, one missed cartridge of .12 bore and one empty cartridge of .315 bore. The Investigating Officer also took into possession the pellets and the jeep etc. This witness further stated that there was enmity between Ami Lal and the accused as Ami Lal had murdered Bhagi Ram, who was brother of Jee Ram accused. The accused, therefore, wanted to avenge the murder of Bhagi Ram. 14. The Investigating Officer also took into possession the pellets and the jeep etc. This witness further stated that there was enmity between Ami Lal and the accused as Ami Lal had murdered Bhagi Ram, who was brother of Jee Ram accused. The accused, therefore, wanted to avenge the murder of Bhagi Ram. 14. Chhotu Ram was cross-examined by the defence but he withstood the same and the defence was not able to extract anything substantial from him during the cross-examination. Chhotu Ram’s version tallies with the initial version given in the FIR and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. The factum of recovery of so many empty cartridges from the scene of occurrence, the injuries suffered by Hari Singh and Sant Lal, lend sufficient credence to the testimony of this witness. His version that he was hiding in the fields is quite believable as in such a case of firing by number of people, he would have no option but to hide himself for fear of his life. 15. As regards statement of Hari Singh PW6, he is an injured witness. He has supported the prosecution version to the extent that on the day of occurrence, the accused persons were going from village Bhodia Bishnoian to Badopal in a jeep No.DNC-9324. When they were crossing near the cremation ground of village Bhana, gun shots were fired at the jeep. He stopped the jeep and ran away from the spot. However, Hari Singh stated that he did not identify the accused. Though, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he had received gunshot injuries. He also admitted that Sant Lal and Chhotu Ram were also in the jeep at the time of the alleged occurrence. A part of his examination-inchief is reproduced below:- “The jeep belonged to Bhup Singh of village Badopal. I was in his employment. Sant Lal was to go to Badopal. He had also boarded the jeep with us when I was going to Badopal from Bhodia. I had received pellet injuries. Ami Lal met me at about 10.00 A.M. In the morning. Ami Lal was sitting on the front seat by my side. Chhotu Ram and Sant Lal were sitting on the rear seat. It is correct that the gun shots were fired near the funeral ground of village Bhana. I had seen a white gypsy there. Ami Lal had asked me to stop the jeep. Ami Lal was sitting on the front seat by my side. Chhotu Ram and Sant Lal were sitting on the rear seat. It is correct that the gun shots were fired near the funeral ground of village Bhana. I had seen a white gypsy there. Ami Lal had asked me to stop the jeep. Some persons were lying in ambush and they had fired shots. I cannot tell their numbers. I have seen the accused who are present in court. I did not see them at the spot. It is incorrect that Jee Ram accused was armed with a rifle and the other namely Prithi s/o Sahi Ram, Ram Singh and another Ram Singh and Mahabir were armed with guns and that they fired shots.” 16. The very fact that this witness received a serious injury and that he admitted the presence of Chhotu Ram and Sant Lal at the spot shows that he has corroborated prosecution case to a great extent. However, it appears that he did not support the prosecution case fully only out of fear. 17. The injury received by Hari Singh has been described by Dr. Ajay Kumar Goyal, who stepped into the witness-box as PW1. He has described injury thus: “1. There was an entrance wound 8 cms lateral to, lateral end of left clevical at left shoulder joint. The wound was round. Edges of wound were inverted and collar of contusion of size 2 cms was present. There was no wound of exist. Advised x-ray chest P.A. with view to confirm the presence of bullet.” The doctor even extracted a metallic bullet of the size of ½ cm x ½ cm from the body of Hari Singh. 18. It is, thus, clear that Hari Singh suffered a serious injury at the time of firing and it was on his statement that the police machinery was set into motion. However, later he did not support the prosecution case fully only due to fear. It is but natural that Hari Singh, who was a driver of the jeep, would not like to put his life at risk between two warring parties, who had a bloody feud between them for last so many years. Moreover, this witness also knew that the gunshot injury could easily have proved fatal to him as well. Thus, there is a reason behind his resiling. 19. Moreover, this witness also knew that the gunshot injury could easily have proved fatal to him as well. Thus, there is a reason behind his resiling. 19. However, law is well settled on the point that inculpatory part of statement of a witness can be relied upon by the court and exculpatory part excluded for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion. In the present case, the presence of Chhotu Ram on the spot, who has given an eye-witness account of the occurrence, the injuries suffered by him, the recovery of jeep, the firing of gunshots and the place of occurrence need to be taken into consideration as inculpatory and to that extent this evidence of Hari Singh needs to be read as corroborative of what Chhotu Ram PW9 has stated. 20. This apart, another witness PW7 has deposed regarding the condition of the jeep, which was recovered from the spot. He has stated that he was working as a motor mechanic in Haryana Roadways, Hisar and examined jeep No.DNC-9324 in Police Station Adampur and gave his report Ex.PO. According to him, front tyres of the jeep were burst. The battery of the jeep was shot and the winds screen was burst. 21. Apart from this, there are certain witnesses, though formal in nature, but have fully supported the prosecution case. PW2 Bhoj Raj Patwari prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PJ, Constable Baldev Kumar PW3 deposed that he was posted as constable and a special report of the case was handed over to him at 3.30 P.M. for onward transmission to senior officers. He handed over a copy of the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate on the same day at about 8.00 P.M. PW4 Head Constable Dharambir, PW5 Constable Sumer Singh and PW8 Suresh Kumar are police officials who submitted their affidavits in evidence. PW11 Chander Bhan Sub Inspector proved the disclosure statement Ex.PZ, PW12 Sukhraj Singh Sub Inspector partly investigated the case and interrogated Mahabir on 20.12.1990. He also recovered one pistol and three cartridges on the basis of disclosure statement made by Mahabir. This witness also interrogated Ram Singh and on the basis of his disclosure statement, recovered a pistol and a cartridge, vide recovery memo Ex.PBB/1. 22. Sub Inspector Sawtantar Singh PW13 deposed that on receipt of ruqa Ex.PH, he recorded the formal FIR Ex.PH/2. He also recovered one pistol and three cartridges on the basis of disclosure statement made by Mahabir. This witness also interrogated Ram Singh and on the basis of his disclosure statement, recovered a pistol and a cartridge, vide recovery memo Ex.PBB/1. 22. Sub Inspector Sawtantar Singh PW13 deposed that on receipt of ruqa Ex.PH, he recorded the formal FIR Ex.PH/2. Thereafter, he proceeded to the spot near village Bhana where Ran Singh SI and other police officials were also present. He also deposed that on the basis of the statement of Chhotu Ram, a site plan of the occurrence was prepared and 47 empties were recovered from the scene of occurrence. 23. From the entire factual background of the case and keeping in view the testimony of the witnesses, which have been carefully perused by us, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case fully and conviction of all the accused deserves to be maintained as such. 24. As regards the argument of the learned counsel that old enmity between the parties can be a motive for the crime and also a motive for false implication, we are unable to accept the latter as there is ample evidence on record to show that the occurrence did take place, which was witnessed by Chhotu Ram and Hari Singh PW6, Hari Singh even suffered a serious injury in the same. Therefore, the argument that there could be false implication is without any force as injuries were suffered by Hari Singh and Sant Lal in the firing incident and Ami Lal’s body was never found. It is on record that Ami Lal had committed the murder of Bhagi Ram, brother of Jee Ram and all the accused have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the said incident. The judgment was upheld upto the Apex Court. This, in our view, provides sufficient motive to the assailants to commit the crime in question to avenge the murder of Bhagi Ram. The argument of the learned counsel that presence of Chhotu Ram PW9 at the scene of occurrence was doubtful, is also without any substance. Even Hari Singh PW6 has admitted in his statement that Chhotu Ram was present on the scene of occurrence. The argument of the learned counsel that presence of Chhotu Ram PW9 at the scene of occurrence was doubtful, is also without any substance. Even Hari Singh PW6 has admitted in his statement that Chhotu Ram was present on the scene of occurrence. This apart, the police recovered the empties and a gun from the scene of occurrence and prepared a site plan as pointed out by Chhotu Ram. Defence was not able to elicit anything from Chhotu Ram in crossexamination which could help them in demolishing the credibility of the testimony. 25. We are unable to accept the contention that there was no place for Chhotu Ram to hide in the fields. He has clearly stated that he hid in the nearby crops. There is nothing to show that this statement made by Chhotu Ram is incorrect. 26. The last argument raised by the counsel that since body of Ami Lal had not been found, there was no medical evidence to support the prosecution case as regards the manner of death of Ami Lal. In this regard, Chhotu Ram has clearly stated that after killing Ami Lal, accused put his body in the jeep and took it away. It is for this reason that body of Ami Lal could never be found. Due to this reason the accused were charged and convicted under Section 201 IPC. Even if the body of deceased Ami Lal had not been recovered, that does not show that the prosecution case, as unfolded during the investigation and subsequent trial, contains any fallacy. 27. As already pointed out above, even version of Hari Singh cannot be discarded completely. The Apex Court in case reported as Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 627, has held that merely because a witness has turned hostile, his entire evidence cannot be treated as effaced from the record. His testimony, to the extent found reliable, can be acted upon. In the instant case, Hari Singh apart from identifying the accused, has otherwise supported a part of the prosecution version and has admitted the presence of Chhotu Ram at the scene of occurrence. 28. His testimony, to the extent found reliable, can be acted upon. In the instant case, Hari Singh apart from identifying the accused, has otherwise supported a part of the prosecution version and has admitted the presence of Chhotu Ram at the scene of occurrence. 28. We are, therefore, of the confirmed view that from the evidence available on record, it is clearly proved that the accused are guilty of committing murder of Ami Lal by intentionally causing his death and are, therefore, guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. It has also been proved that in furtherance of their common object of unlawful assembly, the accused, named above, caused injuries to Hari Singh and Sant Lal and this act could have caused their death. Therefore, the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC is also established. The accused are also guilty of lifting the body of Ami Lal from the spot and destruction of evidence and thus, guilty of offence under Section 201 IPC. Further the accused are also guilty of offence under Section 148 IPC. No interference, therefore, in the judgment delivered by the trial court is warranted. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused by the trial court for the offences committed by them, as enumerated in the foregoing para, is therefore, affirmed. ———————————