Judgment Since the above three appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and order dated 23.04.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/IIIrd F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar, Rudrapur in S.T. Nos. 258 of 2002, 259 of 2002 and 260 of 2002, therefore, the appeals are being disposed of together by this common judgment. These appeals have been preferred by the accused/appellants against the judgment and order dated 23.4.2003 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight years u/s 394 I.P.C. & a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine the appellants shall further undergo six months R.I. The accused/appellants have also been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years u/s 307 I.P.C. & fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine the appellants shall further undergo two months S.I. The accused/appellants were also convicted u/s 25/27 Arms Act & sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year each. It was further directed that the sentences should run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that Narendra Singh was an employ of Cooperative Society at Nanakmata on 12/06/2002. He was working in the said society as Clerk/Cashier. On 12/06/2002, he was going to Nainital Cooperative Bank, Vidora to deposit Rs. 2,14,950/- alongwith his colleague Kharak Singh. He was carrying the above money in the briefcase. As soon as they reached near the grove of Dharam Singh, near Vidora village, suddenly two persons appeared and threw mirchi powder on their eyes and snatched away the briefcase from the hand of Narendra Singh. Thereafter, the miscreants fled away from the spot. Kharak Singh and Narendra Singh cried for the help. Thereupon, Kulwant Singh, Balwant Singh, Kuldev Singh, Meher Singh, Kishan Singh, Ramu and others, who were the employees of Samiti came there and chased the accused/appellants. Mahesh Joshi immediately informed the police station Nanakmata about the incident on phone. All of them chased the accused/appellants. Meanwhile, the police party also reached at the spot and they also chased the accused/appellants. The accused/appellants fired upon these persons with intention to kill them. In the meantime, Jairnail Singh tried to catch the accused/appellants. The accused/appellants fired upon Jairnail Singh due to which he sustained the firearm injuries on his person. The accused/appellants also fired upon Darshan Singh who also sustained injuries on his person. The accused/appellants fired upon these persons with intention to kill them. In the meantime, Jairnail Singh tried to catch the accused/appellants. The accused/appellants fired upon Jairnail Singh due to which he sustained the firearm injuries on his person. The accused/appellants also fired upon Darshan Singh who also sustained injuries on his person. Finally, the accused/appellants were apprehended and on interrogation, they disclosed their names as Paramjit Singh and Charan Singh. Both the accused/appellants were found having the country made pistol with them. The recovery of country made pistol; holes of cartridges; and stolen briefcase containing the aforesaid amount was made from the possession of the accused/appellants. Thereafter, the accused/appellants were taken to the police station alongwith the recovered articles. A report to that effect was lodged in the police station at 11:50 a.m. Separate fard memos were prepared for the recovered articles, i.e. briefcase; stolen money; country made pistol; and holes of cartridges. Thereafter, the injured were sent for medical examination. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the chargesheets against the accused/appellants before the court concerned. 3. After submission of chargesheets the accused-appellants were committed to the court of Sessions for trial and the trial court framed charges u/s 394/307 I.P.C. and 25/27 Arms Act against the appellants. The accused-appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed their trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as eight witnesses. Narendra Singh PW1 is the informant of the case. The accused/appellants snatched away the briefcase from Narendra Singh PW1 wherein a sum of Rs. 2,14,950/- was kept. Jairnail Singh PW2 is the injured witness who has sustained injuries in the incident. S.O. Omi Ram Arya PW3 reached at the spot and saw the accused/appellants running and they were apprehended by him and the public, S.I. S.P. Singh PW6 and S.I. R.S. Sharma PW4 are the Investigating Officers of this case. The matter was firstly investigated by S.O. Omi Ram Arya PW3 on receiving the information on phone, thereafter, the matter was entrusted to S.I. S.P. Singh PW6 and finally after the transfer of S.I. S.P. Singh PW6, the investigation was taken up by S.I. R.S. Sharma PW4. He submitted the chargesheets against the accused/appellants. Dr. P.C. Pandey PW5 is the Medical Officer who has examined injured Jairnail Singh. He also examined the accused/appellants. Dr. He submitted the chargesheets against the accused/appellants. Dr. P.C. Pandey PW5 is the Medical Officer who has examined injured Jairnail Singh. He also examined the accused/appellants. Dr. H.B. Rajput PW7 is the Medical Officer who has examined injured Darshan Singh. Darshan Singh PW8 is an injured eyewitness. 5. The accused-appellants were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and they have pleaded not guilty to the charges. The accused/appellants have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 6. The learned Additional Sessions judge on appreciation of the evidence held the accused-appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that there is no dispute that the injured Jairnail Singh PW2 and Darshan Singh PW8 sustained the injuries on 12.06.2002 at about 11:00 a.m. Jairnail Singh PW2 was medically examined by Dr. P.C. Pandey PW5 at about 12:15 p.m. on 12.06.2002 and he found the following injuries on the person of the injured : 1. Small (0.3 cm x 0.2 cm) abrasion over inner portion of Rt. Clavicle. 2. 0.3 cm x 0.4 cm x muscle deep laceration over outer surface, middle portion of Rt. Forearm. 3. Multiple, small rounded, laceration over front and back of left thigh. 4. Small rounded muscle deep laceration just below in medial side of left foot ankle joint. The doctor prepared the medical examination report Ex.Ka. 12 at the time of the examination of the injured Jairnail Singh PW2. He opined that injuries Nos. 2, 3 & 4 were kept under observation and X-ray was advised for the said injuries. It was further opined that the said injuries could have been caused by firearm on 12.06.2002. 9. The other injured Darshan Singh PW8 was examined by Dr. H.B. Rajput PW7 at about 3.05 p.m. on the same day. The doctor prepared the medical report Ex.Ka. 15 of the injured Darshan Singh PW8 at the time of medical examination. The doctor found the following injuries on the person of injured Darshan Singh PW8 : 1. Two abrasions 1 cm. One overarm and one over forearm. Anterior aspect. Surrounding skin is reddish colour. Inflammation is present. 2. Abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm over posterior aspect of right middle finger (1st I.P. Joint). Serum discharge is present. The doctor found the following injuries on the person of injured Darshan Singh PW8 : 1. Two abrasions 1 cm. One overarm and one over forearm. Anterior aspect. Surrounding skin is reddish colour. Inflammation is present. 2. Abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm over posterior aspect of right middle finger (1st I.P. Joint). Serum discharge is present. The doctor opined that the said injures could have been caused on 12.06.2002 at about 11:00 a.m. in the morning. He further opined that the injuries were fresh. Both the injured are said to be present at the spot and they ran behind the accused/appellants to catch hold of them. According to the prosecution case, the accused/appellants also sustained injuries while they were being apprehended. After the arrest of the accused/appellants, they were also medically examined by Dr. P.C. Pandey PW5. Appellant Paramjit Singh was medically examined on the date of the incident at about 12:30 p.m. and following injuries were found on his person : 1. 6 cm x ½ cm x bone deep lacerated wound over right side skull about 8 cm. above right eyebrow. Profuse bleeding. 2. 6 cm x 4 cm red contusion over right side of skull 5 cm backward to injury No. 1. 3. 5 cm x 7 cm red contusion over right side of skull about 6 cm above Rt. Ear. 4. Multiple red contusion over right upper limb. 5. Multiple red contusion over back. 6. 2 small laceration muscle deep over upper surface of left foot. 7. 11 cm x 6 cm red contusion over upper half of right leg 10. On the same day, the appellant Ranjit Singh @ Charanjit Singh @ Raju was also examined at about 12:20 p.m. on the date of the incident and following injuries were found on his person : 1. 5 cm x ½ cm x bone deep lacerated wound over right side skull about 7 cm above and backwards to Rt. Ear. Oozing of blood. 2. 6 cm x 4 cm red contusion over Rt. Side of skull about 8 cm above Rt. Ear. 3. 5 cm x 3 cm red contusion over right side of skull about 5 cm above Rt. Ear. 4. 6 cm x 4 cm red contusion over right shoulder. 5. Multiple red contusion over whole of the back 6. 6 cm x 4 cm red contusion over left thigh lateral side. Ear. 3. 5 cm x 3 cm red contusion over right side of skull about 5 cm above Rt. Ear. 4. 6 cm x 4 cm red contusion over right shoulder. 5. Multiple red contusion over whole of the back 6. 6 cm x 4 cm red contusion over left thigh lateral side. Both the accused/appellants were medically examined by Dr. P.C. Pandey PW5. The doctor has opined that both the accused/appellants could have sustained the injuries at about 11:00 a.m. on 12.06.2002. The said injuries were fresh and it could have been received by the accused/appellants by some blunt object. Thus the injuries on the person of the accused/appellants and the injured Jairnail Singh PW2 and Darshan Singh PW8 establish that they sustained the injures on the date, time and place as indicated above. 11. Now, it is to be decided who were the authors of the injuries; whether after committing the robbery, the accused/appellants fled away from the place of incident, whether the accused/appellants were chased by the public; and whether the accused/appellants apprehended by Jairnal Singh PW1, police personnel and other persons after a distance of 1 km. from the place of the incident. The prosecution case rests on the direct evidence of the eyewitnesses. Narendra Singh PW1 has stated in his evidence that he was an employ of Cooperative Society at Bidora. After collecting a sum of Rs. 2,14,950/- from Cooperative Society, he alongwith his colleague Kharak Singh was going to District Cooperative Bank, Nainital, Branch Bidora to deposit the said amount. When they reached at about 100 metres away from the Society office, near the grove of Dharam Singh, the appellants appeared all of a sudden before them and threw mirchi powder on their eyes. Thereafter, the appellants snatched the briefcase from the hand of Narendra Singh PW1 and ran away from the spot. Kharak Singh and the informant Narendra Singh PW1 sought for the help. Theeupon, Balwant Singh, Baldev Singh, Meher Singh and Kishan Singh, and other employees came there and they also started to run behind the appellants to catch them. Mahesh Joshi immediately informed the police station Nanakmata on phone about the incident. The appellants ran towards the river and the injured Darshan Singh PW8 and Jairnail Singh PW2 other persons also ran behind the accused/appellants to apprehend them. Mahesh Joshi immediately informed the police station Nanakmata on phone about the incident. The appellants ran towards the river and the injured Darshan Singh PW8 and Jairnail Singh PW2 other persons also ran behind the accused/appellants to apprehend them. Meanwhile, the police also reached at the spot and they also ran behind the accused/appellants. The miscreants/appellants afraid of being caught fired upon Darshan Singh PW8 and Jairnail Singh PW2 who sustained the firearm injuries on their persons. The appellants were finally apprehended and thereafter the police took them into custody. Both the accused/appellants were caught with country made pistols in their possession. The recoveries of country made pistols and three holes of cartridges were made. Thereafter, the recovery memos for the recovered articles were prepared at the spot and the accused/appellants were taken to the police station. The injured Jairnail Singh PW2 and Darshan Singh PW8 alongwith the appellants were sent for the medical examination. Therafter, a report was lodged to this effect by Narendra Singh PW1 at the police station. 12. The prosecution also examined Jairnail Singh PW2 who has also deposed before the court that on the date of the incident he was at his shop which was situated in his house itself. He heard the noise and was told that Narendra Singh PW1 has been robbed. He also ran alongwith other persons behind the appellants to catch hold them. The accused/appellant Paramjit Singh was having C.M.P. whereas the accused/appellants Ranjit Singh was holding the briefcase in his hand. The appellants fired upon Jairnail Singh PW2 and he sustained the injuries but with the help of other persons the accused/appellants were apprehended. After the arrest of the accused/appellants, injured Jairnail Singh PW2 fell down on the ground and was taken to the police station from where he was sent to Khatima Hospital and thereafter referred to Haldwani Civil Hospital where he remained admitted for five days. He also narrated the vivid details of the incident. 13. The prosecution also adduced the evidence of S.O. Omi Ram Arya PW3. He is the Station Officer of Nanakmata. He has stated in his evidence that on 12.06.2002 at about 11:00 a.m., he received information on phone that two miscreants have robbed the briefcase from the possession of Narendra Singh PW1. He alongwith the police party reached at the spot. The prosecution also adduced the evidence of S.O. Omi Ram Arya PW3. He is the Station Officer of Nanakmata. He has stated in his evidence that on 12.06.2002 at about 11:00 a.m., he received information on phone that two miscreants have robbed the briefcase from the possession of Narendra Singh PW1. He alongwith the police party reached at the spot. He saw that the people were running behind the accused/appellants to catch hold of them. The accused/appellants were apprehended with the help of public. The accused/appellants were having country made pistol and cartridges with them. The briefcase robbed by the accused/appellants was also recovered from appellant Paramjit Singh. After their arrest, both of them told their names as Pramajit Singh and Charan Singh. The empty cartridges used in the firing were recovered at the spot and recovery memo was prepared at the spot. He was further stated that the recovered articles were sealed at the spot. Thereafter, the accused/appellants and the injured were taken to the police station where report was lodged by Narendra Singh PW1. The injured Jairnail Singh PW2 and Darshan Singh PW8 were sent to the hospital for their medical examination. The appellants were also sent to the hospital for medical examination. He also deposed that the accused/appellants Charan Singh did not disclose his real name. After inquiry, his name came to light as Ranjit Singh @ Raju R/o Bindu Khera, Rudrapur. The appellant Paramjit Singh was found to be the resident of Nanakmata. 14. The prosecution also examined injured Darshan Singh PW8 who has also stated in his evidence that he was sitting outside the Cooperative Society office at about 11:00 a.m. on the date of the incident. When he heard the hue and cry, he also ran towards the place of the incident and chased the accused/appellants. The appellants fired upon the persons who were apprehending them. They fired upon him and Jairnail Singh PW2. They had sustained the injuries by the firing of the appellants. The accused/appellants were firing with the intention to kill them. The accused/appellants were having country made pistol in their hands and after their arrest by the public and the police, the briefcase was recovered from the possession of the accused/appellants. The country made pistol and cartridges were also recovered from their possession. 15. The accused/appellants were firing with the intention to kill them. The accused/appellants were having country made pistol in their hands and after their arrest by the public and the police, the briefcase was recovered from the possession of the accused/appellants. The country made pistol and cartridges were also recovered from their possession. 15. Thus, the prosecution has adduced the evidence of the person who was robbed and who has seen the incident. The prosecution has also adduced two injured witnesses who followed the appellants while fleeing away from the spot. The prosecution has adduced the evidence of Jairnail Singh PW2 and Darshan Singh PW8 who were the injured eyewitnesses of the incident. They have narrated the vivid details with regard to the entire incident in their evidence. All the four witnesses, namely Narendra Singh PW1, injured Jairnail Singh PW2, Om Ram Arya PW3 and injured Darshan Singh PW8 have corroborated the evidence of each other on the material points. Injured Jairnail Singh PW2 and injured Darshan Singh PW8 sustained the injuries at the time of the incident and the injuries have been proved by the prosecution. It is a settled position of law that injured eyewitness stands on a higher pedestal than an ordinary witness. It is also well settled principle of law that the testimony of an injured witness is sufficient to base the conviction and no further corroboration is required. The presence of the injured witness cannot be discarded lightly. There is no doubt about the presence of the injured witnesses at the time of the incident. Injured Jairnail Singh PW2 and Darshan Singh PW8 were cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicited in their evidence to discard their testimony. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevance and efficacy. It is also well settled that the testimony of the injured is sufficient to base the conviction and no further corroboration is required. {See Narendra Nath Khaware Vs. Parasnath Khaware and others 2003 SCC (Crl) 1144 and State of U.P. Vs. Kishan Chand and others 2004 SCC (Cri) 2013}. 16. Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that the prosecution has not produced Ramu, the Peon of the Samiti and Kharak Singh who was accompanying Narendra Singh PW1 at the time of the incident. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that these two witnesses could have corroborated the incident. Kishan Chand and others 2004 SCC (Cri) 2013}. 16. Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that the prosecution has not produced Ramu, the Peon of the Samiti and Kharak Singh who was accompanying Narendra Singh PW1 at the time of the incident. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that these two witnesses could have corroborated the incident. As such, non-production of these witnesses belies the prosecution story. Learned Addl. G.A. refuted the contention. On due consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view although it is true that Kharak Singh and Ramu have not been produced before the court but the evidence of injured eyewitnesses and other witnesses cannot be discarded on this ground alone. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the injured witnesses who are said to have apprehended the appellants after the robbery are the natural witnesses of the incident. They are not interested in any way in the prosecution. The learned Amicus Curiae tried to point out the statement of accused/appellants Ranjit Singh u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated that he and accused Paramjit Singh was beaten up by the associates of Jairnail Singh. Thereafter, they were falsely implicated in this case. He has also stated that he went to the fare of Nanakmata and from there, he went to the house of Paramjit Singh where a scuffle took place between him and Jairnail Singh PW2, that’s why he was falsely implicated in this case. But the defence has not put any suggestion to that effect to Jairnail Singh. No enmity has been shown between them which supports the defence theory. There is no suggestion that there was any scuffle or marpeet with Jairnail Singh PW2. Thus the defence has taken such a plea, after completion of the evidence. There is no effective cross examination about the enmity of the witnesses with the accused/appellants. Thus, it is revealed that there is no enmity at all with the appellants. I have no reason to disbelieve testimony of the witnesses. They being the independent witnesses, it would be their endeavour to see that the real culprits are punished and they would not implicate wrong persons in the crime so to allow the real culprit to go unpunished. Thus their testimony did not reveal that they were in any way inimical to the accused/appellants. They being the independent witnesses, it would be their endeavour to see that the real culprits are punished and they would not implicate wrong persons in the crime so to allow the real culprit to go unpunished. Thus their testimony did not reveal that they were in any way inimical to the accused/appellants. The learned Trial court after thorough scrutiny, found the evidence of the injured witnesses as well as Narendra Singh PW1 to be credible and cogent. The evidence of all the above four witnesses are consistent and cogent in the cross examination also. In such a situation, the other witnesses who were present at the spot are not necessary to be produced to multiply the evidence of incident on the same point. If Ramu, the peon would have been produced before the court, his evidence would have been assailed on the ground that he was the employee of the society where Narendra Singh PW1 was employed. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the evidence adduced and on my independent appreciation, I find the evidence of the eyewitnesses consistent and reliable in their narration of the incident. Moreover, it is a well settled position of law that it is not always necessary to multiply the evidence of the incident on the same point. It has to be seen what is the quality of the evidence. It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity, which is required. If the evidence available on record is otherwise satisfactory in nature and can be said to be trustworthy then increase in the number of witnesses cannot be the requirement of the case. In my opinion non-examination of other witnesses does not cast any infirmity in the prosecution case. 17. Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that there are contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. He pointed out that Narendra Singh PW1 has stated that people were running behind the appellant and in the meanwhile Jairnail Singh PW2 came from the front side of the appellants and he also joined in arresting the accused/appellants. He further stated that the witnesses have stated that Jairnail Singh PW2 was also running behind the appellants alongwith other persons. He pointed out that Narendra Singh PW1 has stated that people were running behind the appellant and in the meanwhile Jairnail Singh PW2 came from the front side of the appellants and he also joined in arresting the accused/appellants. He further stated that the witnesses have stated that Jairnail Singh PW2 was also running behind the appellants alongwith other persons. He further contended that Jairnail Singh PW2 has only stated that one fire was made by the miscreants whereas two persons were injured and three holes of cartridges were found at the spot. He also pointed out that there is difference between the statements as to how and where the recovery memos were prepared. In substance the learned Amicus Curiae contended that the contradictions are of vital in nature and it belies the entire prosecution story. Learned Addl. G.A. refuted the contention. He pointed out that the accused/appellants threw mirchi powder in the eyes of Narendra Singh PW1 and Kharak Singh made the noise for the help. If I imagine the situation at the time of the incident, Narendra Singh PW1 might have suffered the misdeed of the miscreants and what he could have seen and perceived in such a situation, he has stated the fact. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae are not of vital importance. It is pertinent to mention here that when a witness appears before the court, sometimes he may not stand the test of cross examination, which may be sometimes, because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skilful cross-examiner and at times under the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from him. When a witness faces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. (Vide Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar 2002 (6) SCC p/81). The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Munshi Prasad (supra) as follows : “10. ………………………. Incidentally, be it noted that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. State of Bihar 2002 (6) SCC p/81). The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Munshi Prasad (supra) as follows : “10. ………………………. Incidentally, be it noted that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. If the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and the trial court upon appreciation of evidence forms opinion about the credibility thereof, in the normal circumstances the appellate court would not be justified to review it once again without justifiable reasons. It is the totality of the situation, which has to be taken note of, and we do not see any justification to pass a contra-note, as well, on perusal of the evidence on record. In this context reference may be made to two decisions of this Court. The first being State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony 1985 SCC (Cri) 105 as also a later one in the case of Leela Ram v. State of Haryana 2000 SCC (Cri) 222. Needless to record that difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, may be there but that by itself would not prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. In Leela Ram (supra) this Court observed in para 10 of the Report : (SCC pp. 532-33). “10. *** ’24. When an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.’ This Court further observed : ’25. It is a common practice in trial courts to make out contradictions from the previous statement of a witness for confronting him during cross-examination. It is a common practice in trial courts to make out contradictions from the previous statement of a witness for confronting him during cross-examination. Merely because there is inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to impair the credit of the witness. No doubt Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for impeaching the credit of a witness by proof of an inconsistent former statement. But a reading of the section would indicate that all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness. The material portion of the section is extracted below : “155. Impeaching credit of witness. – The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the court, by the party who calls him – (1)-(2) *** (3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted;” 26. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Only such of the inconsistent statement which is liable to be “contradicted” would affect the credit of the witness. Section 145 of the Evidence Act also enables the cross-examiner to use any former statement of the witness, but it cautions that if it is intended to “contradict” the witness the cross-examiner is enjoined to comply with the formality prescribed therein. Section 162 of the Code also permits the cross-examiner to use the previous statement of the witness (recorded under Section 161 of the Code) for the only limited purpose i.e. to “contradict” the witness. 27. To contradict a witness, therefore, must be to discredit the particular version of the witness. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the present statement, even if the latter is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness (vide Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012)”. 18. After considering the evidence in-toto, the trial court found the evidence to be implicitly truthful and reliable, though, the presence of eyewitnesses were attempted to be shown as doubtful. I do not find any reason to accept the plea. 19. Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that the country made pistol and the holes recovered from the spot were not sent to the forensic laboratory for their examination by the expert. I do not find any reason to accept the plea. 19. Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that the country made pistol and the holes recovered from the spot were not sent to the forensic laboratory for their examination by the expert. The learned Amicus Curiae further tried to emphasize that the Investigating Officer could have sent the country made pistol and holes to the forensic laboratory. The learned Addl. G.A. refuted the contention. He contended that if there is any fault on the part of the Investigating Officer, the entire credible and cogent evidence could not be discarded on that score alone. It is true that country made pistol and holes were not sent for the ballistic expert for the examination. Even if the report would have been obtained by the Investigating Officer that would have been the corroborative piece of evidence. It is settled position of law that the report of the ballistic expert /chemical examiner are corroborative piece of evidence. The evidence which has been stated by the witnesses are the substantive piece of evidence. If the substantive piece of evidence is credible and cogent, the entire credible and cogent evidence cannot be discarded on the ground of defective investigation. Failure to send the country made pistol and the holes is only remissness on the part of the Investigating Officer and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would not impaired in any way. Even if the investigation is defective, that pales into insignificance when ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect. To do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation designedly defective. 20. The Apex Court has, while maintaining the conviction of the accused in Karnel Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in 1995 (5) SCC 518, 1995 SCC (Cri) 977 & 1995 CRL.L.J. 4173, observed : “Notwithstanding our unhappiness regarding the nature of investigation, have to consider whether the evidence on record, even on strict scrutiny, establishes the guilt. 20. The Apex Court has, while maintaining the conviction of the accused in Karnel Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in 1995 (5) SCC 518, 1995 SCC (Cri) 977 & 1995 CRL.L.J. 4173, observed : “Notwithstanding our unhappiness regarding the nature of investigation, have to consider whether the evidence on record, even on strict scrutiny, establishes the guilt. In case of defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the Investigating Officer if the investigation is designedly defective. Any Investigating Officer, in fairness to the prosecutirx as well as the accused, would have recorded the statements of the two witnesses and would have drawn up a proper seizure-memo in regard to the Chaddi. That is the reason why we have said the investigation was slipshod and defective.” 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Dr. Krishna Pal (supra) that: “9. …………………………… The Investigating Officer in his deposition has also admitted that through mistake he omitted to mention the crime number in the inquest report. It appears to us that the Investigating Officer had not been diligent enough but for that reason we do not feel that reliable and clinching evidence adduced in this case by the eyewitnesses particularly by Dr. Rajveer Singh should be discarded. In this connection, we may refer to a recent decision of this Court in Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. 1995 SCC (Cri) 977. In the said decision, it has been indicated by this Court that in a case of defective investigation, it would not be proper to acquit the accused if the case is otherwise established conclusively because in that event it would tantamount to be falling in the hands of an erring Investigating Officer. As we do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimonies given by eyewitnesses of this case, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view and to interfere with the impugned judgment. These appeals, therefore, are dismissed.” 22. As we do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimonies given by eyewitnesses of this case, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view and to interfere with the impugned judgment. These appeals, therefore, are dismissed.” 22. It has been held in Chhotu vs. State of Maharashtra 1987 (4) SCC 533 & 1997 CRI.L.J. 4394 (SC) that : “That necessarily means that all of them were the most natural and probable witnesses to an incident that then took place near his house, notwithstanding the fact that they were not residents of that locality. It also requires to be mentioned here that if the Investigating Officer failed to seize the bloodstained clothes of PWs 3 and 8 and to promptly examine PW3, whose names as any eye witness was disclosed immediately after the incident, it only indicates remissness on his part but the evidence of PW3 and 8 was not in any way impaired thereby.” 23. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhanaj Singh @ Shera and others Vs. State of Punjab 2004(3) SCC p-654 that in the instant case, the High Court found several disturbing features which indicated how the investigating officer had made out a new case to save the accused persons and to implicate the complainant party. Hence, the High Court analyzed the evidence of the eye witnesses with due care and caution. On finding the said evidence to be credible, the High Court upheld the conviction recorded by the trial court. Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the accused appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds (1) that the police after thorough investigation had concluded that it was the complainant party which caused the death of the deceased (ii) that the pellets, wads and cartridges were not recovered from the spot, (iii) that the weapons of assault and the pellets were not sent for ballistic examination, (iv) that the blood stained earth was not sent for chemical examination (v) that many persons who could have thrown light on the incident had not been examined, and (vi) that the evidence being that of highly interested and inimical persons, should have been discarded. Dismissing the appeal, it was held by the Apex Court that even if the investigation is defective, that pales into insignificance when ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. Dismissing the appeal, it was held by the Apex Court that even if the investigation is defective, that pales into insignificance when ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect. To do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation designedly defective. 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest decision in the case of Rotash Vs. State of Rajasthan 2007 AIR SCW 44 has held that :- “32. The investigation was not foolproof but then defective investigation would not lead to total rejection of the prosecution case. 33. In Visveswaran v. State 2003 (6) SCC 73, this has held : Before we notice the circumstances proving the case against the appellant and establishing his identity beyond reasonable doubt, it has to be borne in mind that the approach required to be adopted by courts in such cases has to be different. The cases are required to be dealt with utmost sensitivity, courts have to show greater responsibility when trying an accused on charge of rape. In such cases, the broader probabilities are required to be examined and the courts are not to get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies which are not of substantial character. The evidence is required to be appreciated having regard to the background of the entire case and not in isolation. The ground realities are to be kept in view. It is also required to be kept in view that every defective investigation need not necessarily result in the acquittal. In defective investigation, the only requirement is of extra caution by courts while evaluating evidence. It would not be just to acquit the accused solely as a result of defective investigation. Any deficiency or irregularity in investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved.” 25. Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was 5 kms. The presence of the police at the time of arrest of the appellant is highly doubtful. The learned Addl. G.A. refuted the contention. He further contended that the distance of 5 kms. Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was 5 kms. The presence of the police at the time of arrest of the appellant is highly doubtful. The learned Addl. G.A. refuted the contention. He further contended that the distance of 5 kms. can be covered in a jeep within 5 to 10 minutes easily. He further contended that the accused/appellants were apprehended at about 1 km. near the river from the place of the incident. The distance between place of incident and the police station has been shown 5 kms. In the F.I.R. It is true that if the police has received the information that a daylight robbery has been committed on the road near thickly populated area, naturally the police would have acted promptly and there is no doubt that the police can not reach within 5 to 10 minutes at the spot. It is also in the evidence that upto 1 km. the accused/appellant chased by the public thereafter they were arrested near the bank of the river. Thus, the presence of the police cannot be doubted at the time of arrest. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants has no force. 26. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants further contended that the recovery memo was prepared at spot and two witnesses have been shown in the recovery memo. But independent witnesses have not been produced before the court. The evidence of recovery of country made pistol and cartridges becomes doubtful. Learned Addl. G.A. refuted the contention. Omi Ram Arya PW3 has proved the recovery. He has stated that the recoveries were made from the place of incident. The evidence of Omi Ram Arya PW3 remain consistent and cogent during the cross examination. The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants has no force. 27. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants has no force. 27. The learned trial court after going through the entire evidence on record has found that the prosecution has led the credible and cogent evidence. After thorough scrutiny of the evidence, the learned trial court found that the witnesses remain unshaken during the cross examination. The learned trial court has also relied upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. I do not find any fault in the approach of the learned trial court in coming to the conclusion that the evidence of the witnesses is credible and cogent. I have also gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. I also on the independent appreciation of the evidence found that the evidence to be credible and cogent. It is further corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. P.C. Pandey PW5 and Dr. H.B. Rajput PW7. The accused/appellants has been arrested at the spot alongwith the money which they robbed. The accused/appellant has also sustained injuries at the time of apprehending them. They were also medically examined by Dr. P.C. Pandey PW5. The injuries on the person of the appellants further corroborate the incident. The evidence of the prosecution further finds credence from the fact that the injuries were sustained by the injured as well as the appellants. This fact further fortifies the presence of the accused/appellant at the spot. 28. The incident took place at about 11:00 a.m. on 12.06.2002. Mahesh Joshi promptly reported the matter to the police station on phone. The police reached at the spot and the accused/appellants were apprehended with the help of the police. After the arrest of the accused/appellants, Narendra Singh PW1 promptly reported the matter to the police station at about 11:50 p.m. on 12.06.2002. The distance between the police station and the place of incident is about 5 kms. Thus, there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. The prompt FIR thus inspires confidence that it was not the outcome of any consultation or deliberation. The distance between the police station and the place of incident is about 5 kms. Thus, there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. The prompt FIR thus inspires confidence that it was not the outcome of any consultation or deliberation. FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them as also the names of the eye witnesses, if any. The incident as narrated by the prosecution witnesses further stands corroborated by the prompt FIR. 29. In view of the foregoing discussions and on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, I am of view that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. I find that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. The judgment and order dated 23.04.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/IIIrd F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar, Rudrapur in S.T. Nos. 258 of 2002, 259 of 2002 and 260 of 2002, is hereby confirmed. The appeals are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. Let the copy of the order be placed on Criminal Appeal Nos. 157 of 2003 and 159 of 2003. 30. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned for compliance.