Judgment ( 1. ) THE aforesaid appellants have preferred these three appeals under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8. 3. 1999 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 201/95, whereby all the five appellants have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with section 149 and section 307 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code, and each of them have been sentenced to one year RI, imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and seven years RI with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, respectively. In default of payment of fine, further ordered to suffer imprisonment for five years and two years respectively on each count. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. ( 2. ) AS the aforesaid three appeals have been preferred by the appellants/accused aggrieved by the same impugned judgment, hence, all these three appeals are being decided by this common judgment. ( 3. ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are, on 11. 5. 1995 at village Soi there was marriage of the daughter of Gandhiram (PW14); Barat came from village airoli and stationed at the school building of the village concerned. In the night barat came to the house of Gandhiram (PW14) with the band for having the dinner. At that time, Baratis complained to Gandiram that the accused persons, whose houses are situated on the way to the house of witness Gandhiram, had abused the people of the Barat concerned At that time, it is alleged that complainant Gandhiram (PW14), Mihilal (deceased) and injured witness Vidyaram, brindavan and Virendra came to the house of the accused persons and asked as to why they had abused the Barat people. On hearing this complaint, all the accused persons namely Ravinder Singh, Visheshwar Singh, Sughar Singh, Vishwanath singh, Ramavtar Singh and Bhikhari @bhikham Singh, came there/they were armed with 12 bore gun and country made pistols and started abusing the complainant party and also fired on them. The accused Mihilal, due to which Mihilal sustained injury on the head and he fell down. The accused Mihilal, due to which Mihilal sustained injury on the head and he fell down. When witness Vidyaram tried to push the deceased Mihilal, at that time it is further alleged that accused Bhikhari @ Bhikham Singh had again fired by his gun, due to which witness Vidyaram also sustained injury on the right leg near the knee joint, then again accusd Visheshwar Singh fired by his gun, due to which Vrindavan, second injured, sustained injury on his left thigh;. there after, accused Ramavtar Singh fired by his country made pistol, due to which deceased Mihilal sustained injury on his neck; accused Ravinder Singh also fired by country made pistol, due to which Mihilal sustained pellet injury near the left eye; Virendra had also caused injury by means of country made pistol, due to which witness Virendra sustained-pellet injury on his right leg; when complainant/injured virendra tried to save himself and accused Ravinder Singh tried to catch him then again accused Vishwanath fired by his country made pistol, due to which accused Ravinder Singh also sustained-some pellet injury. After causing the aforesaid injuries, the accused persons ran away from the spot. Witnesses Gyansingh, Roshan Singh, Mahavir, Janved and Devendra Singh assembled there and took all the injured in a tractor to the District hospital at Bhind. The information had been given to the Police Station Phoof from the District Hospital, Bhind with regard to the happening of the incident, then Station House Incharge R. K. Shakya, ASI of Police Station Phoof reached to the District Hospital, Bhind where the injured witness Vidyaram (PW1) lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P/1) as Dehati Nalishi report, on which basis a case had been registered and R. K. Shakya, ASI, started the investigation, issued memo for examination of the injured persons. As the condition of injured Mihilal found to be serious, hence after examination of the injuries the concerning doctor referred him for treatment to J. A. Hospital, Gwalior. When he was brought to gwalior for treatment the examining doctor declared him dead. On information the police prepared the inquest panchnama and issued a memo for post-mortem examination. Dr. V. K. Dewan (PW11) performed the post-mortem and proved the report (Ex. P/3 ). The Police Officer R. K. Shakya, ASI, reached on the spot, prepared the spot map (Ex. When he was brought to gwalior for treatment the examining doctor declared him dead. On information the police prepared the inquest panchnama and issued a memo for post-mortem examination. Dr. V. K. Dewan (PW11) performed the post-mortem and proved the report (Ex. P/3 ). The Police Officer R. K. Shakya, ASI, reached on the spot, prepared the spot map (Ex. P/11), also seized empty cartridges, blood stained earth from the spot, recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses; thereafter arrested the accused persons; also seized the weapons used in the commission of the offence and after due investigation the charge sheet had been filed. ( 4. ) THE charge sheet had been filed against six accused persons. All the six accused persons abjured the guilt and their defence is of false implication in this case. The accused persons had also examined five defence witnesses, namely, Sughar Singh (DW1), Prakash (DW2), Baburam (DW3), B. S. Bhatnagar (DW4) and Dr. Vinod Bajpai (DW5), who proved the injuries sustained to accused Ravinder Singh. The learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record by the impugned judgment held the aforesaid five appellants/accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 and section 307 read with section 149 of IPC and sentenced each of them as stated herein above, while sixth accused Sughar , Singh had been only charged for the offence punishable under Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act, who had been acquitted by the trial Court itself. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the aforesaid five appellants have preferred these three appeals. ( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellants and Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. ( 6. ) IT is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution has deliberately changed the place of incident as indicated in the FIR (Ex. P/1) and as shown in the spot map (Ex. P/11 ). Firstly, in the initial FIR (Ex. P/1) registered as Dehati Nalishi, the place of incident is shown to be in front of the house of the complainant gandhiram, but when the Investigating Officer R. K. Shakya reached on the spot and found that the incident had taken place in front of the house of accused bhikhari then he deliberately interpolated the FIR (Ex. P/1) registered as Dehati Nalishi, the place of incident is shown to be in front of the house of the complainant gandhiram, but when the Investigating Officer R. K. Shakya reached on the spot and found that the incident had taken place in front of the house of accused bhikhari then he deliberately interpolated the FIR (Ex. P/1) and mentioned the place of incident as the place - in front of the house of accused Bhikhari @ bhikham Singh and on this interpolation in the FIR no explanation has been given by R. K. Shakya, the Investigating Officer, and thus, the aforesaid interpolation made in the FIR by the Investigating Officer also creates doubt on the truthfulness of the entire prosecution story mentioned in the FIR (Ex. P/1 ). Similarly, it is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the witness Devendra Singh (PW19) admitted in his statement that he himself went to the Police Station Phoof to inform the police about the incident and thereafter came to the hospital at bhind. If the aforesaid statement of witness Devendra Singh (PW19) is believed then certainly the information which has been received by the Police Station Phoof in the night itself had been suppressed by the police concerned and Dehati Nalishi report (Ex. P/1) which had been registered at about 6 oclock in the morning by r. K. Shakya, ASI, is not the FIR and, in such circumstances, if the prosecution had suppressed the initial information, which had been alleged to be given by devendra Singh (PW19) in the night itself at Police Station Phoof then suppression of the original FIR by the police is also fatal for the prosecution. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that in the same incident one accused ravinder Singh also sustained firearm injury, which has been proved as per the statement of Dr. Vinod Bajpai (DW5), who also proved the MLC report (Ex. D/9-c), wherein he proved that accused Ravinder Singh also sustained pellet injury near the right ear and on the face and proved the x-ray report (Ex. Vinod Bajpai (DW5), who also proved the MLC report (Ex. D/9-c), wherein he proved that accused Ravinder Singh also sustained pellet injury near the right ear and on the face and proved the x-ray report (Ex. D/10) and; prosecution has failed to explain about the firearm injury sustained to the accused ravinder Singh S/o Darshan Singh and on this point also if the prosecution has deliberately failed to explain the injury sustained to accused Ravinder Singh then it would be presumed that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident, which is also fatal for the prosecution. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that there is no motive available to the accused persons for causing any injury to the complainant party in this incident. The place of incident is also changed and if on the basis of the spot map prepared by the Investigating Officer r. K. Shakya, which is Ex. P/11 it is proved that the incident took place in front of the house of accused Bhikhari @ Bhikham Singh then the defence version ought to be believed that the complainant party assembled in front of the house of the accused Bhikhari and started firing, due to which one of the accused Ravinder singh sustained firearm injury and in that case also the complainant party appears to be aggressor in the incident and in such circumstances, none of the accused persons can be held guilty for causing any injury to the complainant party and learned trial Court has also deliberately ignored the aforesaid circumstances of the case and wrongly held the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence. Hence, prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and also prayed for acquittal of the accused/appellants. ( 7. Hence, prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and also prayed for acquittal of the accused/appellants. ( 7. ) IN reply, learned Public Prosecutor for the State Shri M. P. S. Bhadoriya, supported the impugned judgment and submits that the incident had taken place in the village when the Barat was coming to the house of complainant Gandhiram, at that time accused persons started abusing being annoyed with the noise of the band, which was being played in the Barat and started firing, due to which one mihilal sustained firearm injury and died in this incident and other injured Vidyaram, brindavan and Virendra also sustained firearm injuries and injured-prosecution witnesses specifically stated about the involvement of all the five accused persons in this incident. The identity of the accused persons is also not in dispute because all the accused persons were also invited in the aforesaid marriage function for dinner and, in such circumstances, nothing substantial came in the cross-examination of the injured prosecution witnesses that they had falsely implicated the accused persons in this incident. It is also submitted by the learned Public prosecutor for the State that it is true that one accused Ravinder Singh also sustained firearm injury in this incident, for which an explanation has been given by the complainant Vidyaram in the FIR (Ex. P/1) itself that when the accused ravinder Singh tried to catch the injured/complainant Virendra, at that time accused vishwanath Singh fired by his country made pistol, due to which accused Ravinder singh also sustained pellet injury. This explanation had been given at the first available opportunity at the time of lodging of the FIR (Ex. P/1) itself and if accidentally the accused Ravinder Singh sustained any firearm injury in the same incident caused by accused Vishwanath then certainly no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for non-explanation of the injuries sustained to the accused Ravinder Singh in this incident and in such circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly held all the five accused persons guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with section 149 and 307 read with section 149 of IPC and no grounds are available for any interference in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, hence, prayed for dismissal of all the three appeals preferred by the appellants. ( 8. ( 8. ) FIRST of all, with regard to the death of Mihilal in this incident is concerned, this fact has not been controverted by the appellants/accused before this Court and further this fact has been proved by the prosecution on the basis of the statements of Vidyaram (PW-1), Brindavan (PW2), Virendra Singh (PW4) Gyan singh (PW5), Shyam Sunder (PW10), Jaswant (PW12) and Devendra Singh (PW19 ). All these witnesses specifically stated that in this incident Mihilal sustained firearm injury on the face and on the head, due to which he died in this incident when the people were trying to take him to Gwalior for necessary treatment. The cause of death of Mihilal has been proved by the Autopsy Surgeon dr. V. K. Deewan (PW11), who performed post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased Mihilal and found entry wound caused by gun shot 0. 5cm. x0. 5cm. in size, on the right side of the forehead in 4cm. x9cm. Diameter area; second firearm injury on the face near the right eye having measurement of 2. 5cm. x2 cm. , and opined that due to the injuries found on the head and on the face, which resulted hemorrhage and shock, the deceased Mihilal died within 4 to 12 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. The death is also found to be homicidal in nature. He also extracted 12 pellets from the injuries sustained to the deceased in post-mortem examination, which after sealing them were handed over to the police Constable for further examination in the laboratory and, also proved the post-mortem report (Ex. P/13 ). ( 9. ) THUS, on the basis of the aforesaid statements of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has proved the fact that in this incident one Mihilal died due to firearm injuries sustained to him and his death is homicidal in nature. ( 10. ) NOW with regard to the involvement of the accused persons is concerned, prosecution firstly examined the injured eye witness Vidyaram (PW1), who had also lodged the FIR as Dehati Nalishi in the District Hospital at Bhind when he was admitted in the hospital for the necessary treatment. He specifically stated that in the village on the date of incident the marriage of the daughter of his uncle Gandhiram was being solemnized and the Barat came from village Airoli. Barat stationed in the school building. At about10. He specifically stated that in the village on the date of incident the marriage of the daughter of his uncle Gandhiram was being solemnized and the Barat came from village Airoli. Barat stationed in the school building. At about10. 00 p. m. Baratis with the band etc. came to have dinner in the house of Gandhiram. They complained that the accused persons had abused the Baratis because of heavy noise of the band concerned, at that time this witness Vidyaram together with other witnesses told Baratis that they wouldc subside the matter and make the accused persons convinced and thereafter when Vidyaram himself with the other persons went to the house of accused Bhikhari to ask them as to why they had abused Barat people, at that time accused persons started abusing and firing. Accused Bhikhari @ Bhikham Singh and Visheshwar Singh were having guns with them, accused ravinder Singh, Vishwanath Singh and Ramavtar Singh were having country made pistol with them. Accused Visheshwar Singh fired by his gun, due to which Mihilal sustained injury on his head; thereafter, accused Bhikhari @ Bhikham Singh also fired by his gun, due to which he himself sustained injury over the rights leg near the knee joint. Thereafter, accused Visheshwar Singh again, fixed by his gun, due to which witness Virendra- Singh sustained injury on the right leg-then accused ravinder Singh again fired by his country made pistol, due to which deceased mihilal sustained injury; accused Vishwanath had also fired by his country made pistol, due to which witness Virendra Singh sustained injury on his left leg. It is true that there are some contradictions in the FIR (Ex. P/1) lodged by this witness vidyaram and in his court statement. In the FIR (Ex. P/1) the incident is shown to be happened when the complainant party went to the house of accused Bhikhari @ Bhikham Singh whereas in the court statement Vidyaram (PW1) stated that when Baratis along with the band were coming to the house of Gandhiram to have dinner, at that time accused persons had firstly started abusing and thereafter started firing, due to which complainant party sustained firearm injuries and this appears to be the reason for the correction of the place of incident in the FIR (Ex. P/1), which was initially lodged in the District Hospital at Bhind by the complainant Vidyaram, wherein firstly the place of incident was shown to be in front of the house belonging to the complainant whereas subsequently it has been corrected as in front of the house of accused Bhikhari @ Bhikham Singh. In detailed cross-examination in para 12, this witness Vidyaram specifically stated that there was sufficient light on the place of incident, therefore, identification of the accused at the time of incident is not found to be disputed specially when all the accused persons are the neighbours of the complainant party. ( 11. ) SIMILAR is the statement of other injured witness Brindavan (PW2), who also stated the same facts that when the complainant tried to make the accused persons understand as to why they were abusing the Barat people, at that time accused persons started abusing and also started firing by their respective guns, due to which Mihilal sustained injuries on his head, Vidyaram (PW1) and he himself also sustained firearm injuries. In detailed cross-examination of this witness brindavan, some minor omissions were brought in his previous statement and in the court statement, on which basis learned counsel for the appellants tried to convince us that his entire statement ought to be disbelieved but these minor omissions came in the cross-examination are the explanation, which is not expected to be given in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. by the Investigating officer and thus, these minor omissions will not at all affect the veracity of the statement given by witness Brindavan (PW2) and Vidyaram (PW1), specially in the situation when both these witnesses are also injured in the same incident and sustained firearm injuries alleged- to be caused by the accused persons and, in such circumstances, their presence on the spot also cannot be disputed. ( 12. ) SIMILARLY, third injured witness Virendra Singh (PW4) also stated the same thing that all the accused persons started firing, due to which Mihilal sustained firearm injury on the head, Vidyaram and Brindavan also sustained firearm injuries and he himself sustained firearm injury alleged to be caused by the accused vishwanath on the right leg. ( 12. ) SIMILARLY, third injured witness Virendra Singh (PW4) also stated the same thing that all the accused persons started firing, due to which Mihilal sustained firearm injury on the head, Vidyaram and Brindavan also sustained firearm injuries and he himself sustained firearm injury alleged to be caused by the accused vishwanath on the right leg. He had also denied the suggestion given by the defence in the cross-examination that the people in Barat were also firing by their respective gun, due to which the complainant party sustained firearm injuries, but only by this suggestion the whole prosecution story proved by the aforesaid injured witnesses cannot be disbelieved. ( 13. ) GYAN Singh (PW5), who is the eye witness of the incident is also the son of deceased Mihilal. He also stated the similar story that the accused persons had started firing, due to which his father Mihilal sustained injury on his head and vidyaram, Brindavan and Virendra also sustained firearm injuries. After the incident, he had taken all the injured persons in a tractor to the District Hospital at bhind for necessary treatment where his father Mihilal, when he was to be shifted to Gwalior, died on the way to Gwalior itself. ( 14. ) ROSHAN Singh (PW6) stated that he reached on the spot immediately after the incident and found Mihilal, Vidyaram, Brindavan and Virendra in injured condition, they had been taken to the hospital immediately in a tractor. ( 15. ) MEDICAL witness Dr. Vinod Bajpai (PW7) posted at District Hospital Bhind examined firstly injured Mihilal, who subsequently died, and found multiple pellet injuries in the zygomatic area and also near the right eye and proved the MLC report of injured Mihilal, which is Ex. P/7. Similarly, this witness also examined second injured Brindavan S/o Ratiram and found multiple pellet injuries on the left thigh and proved MLC report Ex. P/8. Similarly he also examined third injured virendra Singh S/o Gandhiram and found pellet injuries on the right leg and proved the report Ex. P/9. As according to this witness, the condition of Mihilal was found to be critical, therefore, he had been immediately referred for necessary treatment to the JA Hospital, Gwalior. Thus, the aforesaid medical witness also proved the injuries sustained to the witnesses Mihilal, Virendra Singh and Brindavan. ( 16. P/9. As according to this witness, the condition of Mihilal was found to be critical, therefore, he had been immediately referred for necessary treatment to the JA Hospital, Gwalior. Thus, the aforesaid medical witness also proved the injuries sustained to the witnesses Mihilal, Virendra Singh and Brindavan. ( 16. ) PROSECUTION witnesses Shyam Sunder (PW10) and Devendra Singh (PW19)are also the eye witness of the incident, who also stated that the accused persons started firing, due to which Mihilal, Vidyaram, Brindavan and Virendra sustained firearm injuries. Jaswant (PW12) is also the son of deceased Mihilal, who reached on the spot immediately after the incident and found his father in injured condition. ( 17. ) DR. R. S. Swarnkar (PW13) is the medical witness, who proved the x-ray report of injured Virendra Singh S/o Gandhiram and found radio opaque on x-ray examination near the right fibula bone and proved the x-ray report Ex. P/15; Similarly, on x-ray examination of Brindavan S/o Ratiram found radio opaque near the left thigh and proved the x-ray report Ex. P/17; on x-ray examination of Vidyaram s/o Balram also found radio opaque near the right knee joint and proved,the x-ray report Ex. P/19. ( 18. ) GANDHIRAM (PW14) is also the eye witness of the incident but he turned hostile and not proved anything in favour of the prosecution. Devlal Dhanole (PW15)only proved the registration of the FIR at Police Station Phoof, which is Ex. P/22 and also proved the arrest memo of accused Ravinder Singh, which is Ex. P/23: janved (PW16) only proved the fact that he saw the injured person lying on the spot but had not proved as to who had caused the aforesaid injury to the complainant and he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Nathe Khan (PW17) is the village Patwari, who prepared the spot map Ex. P/25. Umesh Singh (PW18) proved the seizure memo Ex. P/27 with regard to the clothes sent from JA Hospital, Gwalior. belonging to the deceased Mihilal. Shrikuwri (PW2q), Ramkaran (PW21) and ramkishan (PW22) are also shown to be the eye witnesses of the incident but they had not supported the prosecution story and had been declared hostile by the prosecution. R. K. Shakya, ASI (PW24) is the Investigating Officer, who proved the investigating part of the incident. ( 19. belonging to the deceased Mihilal. Shrikuwri (PW2q), Ramkaran (PW21) and ramkishan (PW22) are also shown to be the eye witnesses of the incident but they had not supported the prosecution story and had been declared hostile by the prosecution. R. K. Shakya, ASI (PW24) is the Investigating Officer, who proved the investigating part of the incident. ( 19. ) DEFENCE had also examined Sughar Singh (DW1), who is also one of the accused in this incident, to prove that he had never handed over his gun to accused bhikhari @ Bhikham Singh but before the incident his gun had already been deposited at Police Station Phoof on 13. 7. 1995 itself, for which he had proved the receipt issued by the Police Station, which is Ex. D/1-c and, in such circumstances, this accused Sughar Singh had been acquitted by the trial Court itself from the charge under Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act. ( 20. ) PRAKASH (DW2) tried to prove the fact that accused Ramavtar was in his house at the time of incident, but this explanation has not been given by Ramavtar in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. Similarly, witness Baburam (DW3) was produced for to prove the point of alibi taken in respect of accused vishwanath but as there is no specific defence of these accused Ramavtar and visheshwar Singh in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , therefore, the statements of these two defence witnesses Prakash (DW2) and Babu Ram (DW3) have been found to be after thought and rightly disbelieved by the trial court. ( 21. ) B. S. BHATNAGAR (DW4) proved the x-ray report of accused Ravinder Singh and Dr. Vinod Bajpai (DW5) proved the injuries sustained to accused Ravinder singh S/o Darshan Singh, for which proved the MLC report (Ex. D/9-c ). ( 22. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants stressed upon the fact that as in the initial FIR lodged by witness Vidyaram place of incident is shown to be in front of the house of complainant but subsequently in the FIR this place has been corrected by the Investigating Officer R. K. Shakya as in front of the house of accused bhikhari and this material alteration in the report Ex. P/1 appears to be substantial alteration, hence on this ground the whole prosecution story ought to be disbelieved. ( 23. P/1 appears to be substantial alteration, hence on this ground the whole prosecution story ought to be disbelieved. ( 23. ) WE are not much impressed by the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the appellants. It is true that there is some overwriting in the FIR (Ex. P/1 ). Initially the place of incident is shown to be in front of the house of complainant but subsequently it is mentioned as in front of the house of accused bhikhari, but on perusal of this FIR coupled with the spot map (Ex. P/11) prepared by the Investigating Officer the position becomes clear that the alleged incident had taken place on the way in front of the house of Bhikhari and this has got further support by the statements of the witnesses that the incident occurred because of the fact that when Barat came on the road with the band, due to the noise of the band the accused persons got annoyed and started firing on the people in the Barat and, in such circumstances, when the Investigating Officer found the place of incident in front of the house of accused Bhikhari @ Bhikham Singh then certainly it cannot be presumed that the Investigating Officer had deliberately changed the place of incident and, therefore, on the basis of correction in the FIR (Ex. P/1) with regard to the place of incident, the appellants/accused will not get any benefit and on this ground the whole prosecution story cannot be disbelieved specially when the third injured eye witness specifically stated with regard to the involvement of all the accused persons in this incident. ( 24. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants also stressed upon the fact that due to some interpolation or correction in the FIR by the Investigating Officer, which has not been properly explained, the whole prosecution case ought to be thrown out and it appears that the FIR had been registered after considerable delay. ( 24. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants also stressed upon the fact that due to some interpolation or correction in the FIR by the Investigating Officer, which has not been properly explained, the whole prosecution case ought to be thrown out and it appears that the FIR had been registered after considerable delay. In support of the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Ramesh Baburao Devaskar and others vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 1 SCC Cri 212 and Dinesh and others vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2374 , wherein the honble Apex Court held that "if it is found that the FIR has been lodged after considerable delay and compliance of the provisions of Section 157 cr. P. C. is also not proved then the prosecution story appears to be doubtful. " ( 25. ) ON consideration of the facts of the present case it is apparent that as per the statements of injured eye witnesses available in the present case three persons sustained firearm injuries in the incident and one Mihilal died due to firearm injury; the identity of the accused persons is also not disputed; in such circumstances, only on the basis of some correction in the place of incident in the FIR it is not found proved that the FIR had been lodged after considerable delay and in such circumstances, the aforesaid case law cited by learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 26. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Nabab Khan alias Nawab and others vs. State of M. P. reported in 2002 1 C. Cr. J. 310 M. P. , wherein this Court held that "if there is material contradiction in the statements of eye witnesses and in the medical reports of the injured then the statements of the eye witnesses are not found to be reliable. " ( 27. ) WE are of the considered opinion that in the present case the statements of the injured eye witnesses have got full corroboration by the statement of medical evidence. " ( 27. ) WE are of the considered opinion that in the present case the statements of the injured eye witnesses have got full corroboration by the statement of medical evidence. Though it is true that in the requisition memo for medico legal examination the crime number has not been mentioned by the Investigating Officer but by itself the prosecution story is not found to be doubtful because of the fact that the fir had been registered as Dehati Nalishi report, wherein the crime number has not been mentioned. The crime number can be mentioned only after registration of the FIR at police station whereas Dehati Nalishi report has been lodged at the district Hospital Bhind and, in such circumstances, non-mentioning of the crime number in the memo of requisition for the examination of the injured and the deceased is also not found to be fatal for the prosecution. Therefore, the facts of the aforesaid case law cited by learned counsel for the appellants are also different to the facts of the present case. ( 28. ) AT this juncture, it is profitable to place reliance on the decision of the honble Apex Court in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others, 2003 Cri. L. J. 1282; wherein the Honble Apex Court while explaining the procedure regarding inquest report by the Investigating Officer, wherein if the name of the assailant has not been mentioned it is not found to be fatal for the prosecution, and held here as under :- "the High Court has also held hat the details about the occurrence were not mentioned in the inquest report which showed that the investigating officer was not sure of the facts when the inquest report was prepared and this feature of the case carried weight in favour of the accused. We are unable to accept this reasoning of the High Court. The provision for holding of an inquest and preparing an inquest report is contained in Section 174, Cr. P. C. The Heading of the Section is a " Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc. We are unable to accept this reasoning of the High Court. The provision for holding of an inquest and preparing an inquest report is contained in Section 174, Cr. P. C. The Heading of the Section is a " Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc. " Sub-section (1) of this Section provides that when the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give information to the nearest Executive Magistrate and shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such mark appear to have been inflicted. The requirement of the section is that the police officer shall record the apparent cause of death describing the wounds as may be found on the body and also the weapon or instrument by which they appear to have been inflicted and this has to be done in the presence of two or more respectable in habitans of the neighbourhood. The Section does not contemplate that the manner in which the incident took place or the names of the accused should be mentioned in the inquest report. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death, namely whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery, etc. The scope and purpose of Section 174, Cr. P. C. was explained by this court in Podda Narayana and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1252 and it will be useful to reproduce the same. "the proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited scope. The scope and purpose of Section 174, Cr. P. C. was explained by this court in Podda Narayana and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1252 and it will be useful to reproduce the same. "the proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited scope. The object of the proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 74. Neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to mention those details in the inquest report. It is therefore not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report. Their omission is not sufficient to put the prosecution out of Court. " ( 29. ) IN view of the aforesaid decision of the Honble Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that non-mentioning of the crime number and the names of assailants in the inquest report or memo prepared for the medico legal examination of the injured by the Investigating Officer is not found to be fatal for the prosecution and only by this omission the whole prosecution case cannot be thrown out. ( 30. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants further stressed upon the fact that in the statement of prosecution witness Devendra Singh (PW19) it has come that before coming to the District Hospital at Bhind this witness went to the Police Station phoof in the night itself, informed the police and thereafter be came to the District hospital Bhind and if that being so, when this witness Devendra Singh (PW19)informed the Police Station at Phoof then certainly the FIR could be lodged by. this witness Devendra Singh which would be first in time, had been suppressed by the prosecution and in such circumstances also the prosecution story as set forth by the prosecution appears to be doubtful, for this learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Mantaram and others vs. State of MP, reported in 1998 (2) JLJ 313 , wherein it is held that "if one eye witness had an opportunity to reach at the police station and no FIR had been recorded at his instance, the FIR had been recorded when police came on the spot then certainly the prosecution story is found to be doubtful". ( 31. ) ON evaluation of the statement of witness Devendra Singh (PW19) it is apparent that though he admitted that he reached at Phoof Police Station in the same night but he had not admitted the fact that he met there to the concerning tncharge of Police Station R. K. Shakya, ASI (PW24) or not. Devendra Singh (PW19) has also not stated that be had stated there at Police Station Phoof about the incident to any of the police officer and, in such circumstances, it is not on record that Devendra Singh had reported any FIR at Police Station Phoof in the night itself, which has been suppressed by the prosecution and in such circumstances, when lodging of the FIR by Devendra Singh in the night itself is not proved, no question arises with regard to suppression of the FIR by the prosecution and, in view of that, the aforesaid case law cited by learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 32. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Neeraj vs. State of M. P. , reported in 1991 JLJ 564 , wherein the Division Bench of this Court had acquitted the accused persons on the ground that "if the case fully rests upon the circumstantial evidence and if the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete then the accused cannot be found guilty on the basis of such incriminating circumstances. " ( 33. ) WE are of the considered opinion that the facts of the aforesaid case are also different to the facts of the present case. " ( 33. ) WE are of the considered opinion that the facts of the aforesaid case are also different to the facts of the present case. In the present case, statements of two injured eye witnesses are available and: other eye witness is also found to be reliable; the identity of the accused persons is also not doubtful as they belong to the same village and are also neighbours of the complainant party and in such circumstances also the facts of the aforesaid case are not applicable to the facts of the present case because the present case is not based upon the circumstantial evidence only. ( 34. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Punati Ramulu and others, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2644 , wherein the Honble Apex Court held that "police cannot refuse to record the FIR on the ground that the concerning police station has no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime, whereas it is his bounden duty to records FIR: of the cognizable offence. " ( 35. ) ON perusal of the facts of the aforesaid- case, it is apparent that in the present case Devendra Singh (PW19) has nowhere stated that he had lodged FIR or stated about the incident to Police Station Phoof or to Investigating Officer r. K. Shakya, ASI (PW24) and, if that being so then no question arises for refusal to record the FIR alleged to be lodged by Devendra Singh (PW19) and, in such circumstances, the aforesaid case law cited by learned counsel for the appellants is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 36. ) AS discussed herein above, learned counsel for the appellants also-stressed upon the fact that in the post-mortem report of deceased Mihilal it is not apparent that he sustained two firearm injuries but we are of the considered opinion that the eye witnesses specifically stated about causing of firearm injuries to Mihilal by two accused persons and thus the statements of eye witnesses ought to be believed. For this, reliance can be placed upon a decision of the Honble Apex court in State of U. P. vs. Harban Sahai and others, reported in 1998 6 SCC 50 , wherein the Honble Apex Court while setting as ide the order of acquittal passed by the High Court held here as under :- "the High Court has thus knocked out an eyewitness on the strength of an uncanny opinion expressed by a medical witness. Overdependence on such opinion evidence, even if the witness is an expert in the field, to checkmate the direct testimony given by a eyewitness is not a safe modus adoptable in criminal cases. It has now become axiomatic that medical evidence can be used to repel the testimony of eyewitnesses only if it is so conclusive as to rule out even the possibility of the eyewitnesss version to be true. A doctor who conducted post-mortem examination or examined an injured person is usually confronted with such questions regarding different possibilities or probabilities of causing those injuries or post-mortem features which he noticed in the medical report. But the answers given by the witness to such questions need not become the last word on such possibilities. After ail he gives only his opinion regarding such questions. But to discard the testimony of an eyewitness simply on the strength of such opinion expressed by the medical witness is not conducive to the administration of criminal justice. (Vide Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, 1977 4 SCC 452 ; Mage v. State of Haryana 1979 4 SCC 349 ; Ram Dev v. State of U. P. , 1995 Supp (1)SCC 547. " ( 37. ) IN view of the aforesaid principle laid down by the Honble Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that if there might be some discrepancies in the statements of medical witness and that of eyewitnesses then also if the eye witness account is found to be believable then it should be relied upon. ( 38. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants also stressed upon the fact that as per the statement of medical evidence Dr. Vinod Bajpai (DW5), it is proved that the accused Ravinder Singh S/o Darshan Singh also sustained some pellet injury on the right side of the face, for which concerning Dr. Vinod Bajpai (DW5) proved the MLC report Ex. D/10 and x-ray report Ex. Vinod Bajpai (DW5), it is proved that the accused Ravinder Singh S/o Darshan Singh also sustained some pellet injury on the right side of the face, for which concerning Dr. Vinod Bajpai (DW5) proved the MLC report Ex. D/10 and x-ray report Ex. D/11, and submits that the prosecution has failed to explain as to under what circumstances accused Ravinder singh sustained aforesaid injury and, in view of that, it should be presumed that the prosecution has deliberately suppressed the genesis of the incident and on this ground also the whole prosecution story ought to be disbelieved. ( 39. ) WE are not much impressed by the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the appellants. In the initial FIR, which had been lodged by the eye witness Vidyaram (PW1), he had clarified about the injury sustained to accused ravinder Singh and stated that when accused Ravinder Singh tried to catch the complainant/injured Virendra Singh, at that time accused Vishwanath Singh had fired by his country made pistol, due to which accused Ravinder Singh sustained pellet injury in place of complainant Virendra Singh. This FIR had been lodged at about 6. 00 oclock in the morning at the District Hospital Bhind, wherein the complainant Vidyaram had clarified about the circumstances under which the accused Ravinder Singh sustained the aforesaid injury. This has got further support by the statement of Virendra Singh (PW4), wherein he clarified that when accused ravinder Singh tried to catch him, at that time accused Vishwanath Singh had fired by his country made pistol, due to which accused Ravinder Singh sustained the pallet injury (para 10 of cross-examination ). Similar is the explanation given by another witness Shyam Sunder (PW10) in cross-examination para 5, wherein he also clarified that when accused Ravinder Singh ran towards complainant virendra Singh to catch him, at that time accused Vishwanath Singh fired by his pistol; due to which some pellets caused injury to accused Ravinder Singh also. Similar is the explanation in the statement of Jaswant (PW12) in para 4. ( 40. ) IT is not the defence of the accused persons that the complainant party was also armed with any firearm and had also caused any injury to accused Ravinder singh and, in such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the injury sustained to accused Ravinder Singh, which is proved by the statement of Dr. ( 40. ) IT is not the defence of the accused persons that the complainant party was also armed with any firearm and had also caused any injury to accused Ravinder singh and, in such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the injury sustained to accused Ravinder Singh, which is proved by the statement of Dr. Vinod Bajpai (DW5) and had been properly explained by the prosecution witnesses, will not affect the truthfulness of the prosecution story as narrated by the eyewitnesses and the appellants will not get any benefit on the basis of the injuries sustained to the accused. Ravinder Singh. ( 41. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion on the point, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the fact that these appellants/accused with the common object of causing firearm injuries to the complainant party, formed an unlawful assembly and caused firearm injuries to deceased Mihilal, due to which he died and also caused injuries with intent to cause death, to the other injured complainants Vidyaram, Brindavan and Virendra Singh and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 and section 307 read with section 149 of IPC and, thus, the learned trial Court has rightly held them guilty for the aforesaid offences and rightly sentenced them and no grounds are available for any interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. ( 42. ) RESULTANTLY, Criminal Appeal No. 163/99 preferredby appellant Bhikhari @ Bhikhamsingh; Criminal Appeal No. 192/99 preferred by appellants Ravindersingh, vishwanathsingh and Ramavtarsingh; and, Criminal Appeal No. 219/99 preferred by appellant Visheshwar Singh are being devoid of any merit and substance hereby dismissed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by trial court is hereby affirmed. ( 43. ) APPELLANT Bhikhari @ Bhikham Singh of Criminal Appeal No. 163/99 and appellant Vishwanath Singh of Criminal Appeal No. 192/99 are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender themselves immediately before the trial Court and the trial Court will send them to jail for serving remaining part of the jail sentence awarded to them by this judgment, failing which the trial court will take necessary steps for their arrest. Appellant Ravinder Singh of Criminal appeal No. 192/99 and appellant Visheshwar Singh of Criminal Appeal No. 219/99 are already in jail, they will accordingly serve the remaining part of the jail sentence. ( 44. ) APPELLANT Ramavtar Singh of Criminal Appeal No. 192/99 is reported to be released on probation by the Competent Authority. It is made clear that dismissal of appeal preferred by him will not affect his release on probation by the Competent authority in any manner. Appeal dismissed.