S.C. Chaurasia, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C-No. IV, Sultanpur, in Ses­sions Trial Nos. 306 of 2002, 307 of 2002 and 308 of 2002, State v. Ansar, whereby, he convicted the accused, Ansar Ahmad, un­der sections 302 I.P.C.; 3/25 Arms Act, and 4/25 Arms Act, respectively, and sen­tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- un­der section 302 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, further undergo one year simple imprisonment, One year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 3/25 Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, further un­dergo one month's simple imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 4/25 Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, further undergo one month's sim­ple imprisonment. However, the accused was acquitted under section 504 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Sri Zuher Ahmad, lodged the F.I.R. on 30.5.2002, at 04.10 A.M., at Police Station-Dhammaur, district-Sultanpur, with the allegations that there were secret differences between his cousin brother, Mukeem Ahmad and neighbour, Ansar Ahmad, in connection with his illicit relationship with the wife of Ansar Ahmad. In the intervening night between 29th & 30th May, 2002, Mukeem Ahmad was sleeping in the OSARE of his house. His father Mohd. Haneef and some other members, of the family were also sleeping near him. There was electric light. At about 00.30 A.M., on account of said differences, Ansar 'Ahmad armed with knife and hurl­ing abuses, reached at the house of Mukeem Ahmad. On hearing abuses, they awakened and saw that Ansar Ahmad in­flicted knife blow on the chest of Mukeem-Ahmad with the intention of causing his death. On hearing their hue and cry, Mohd. Taufiq, Naseem, Zameel Ahmad and other persons of the village reached at the spot. Mohd. Haneef, father of Mukeem Ahmad, caught hold of Ansar Ahmad. Ansar Ahmad took out country made pistol and opened fire on Mohd. Haneef with the in­tention of causing his death. He sustained injury on his abdomen and fell down near drain. When they tried to apprehend Ansar Ahmad, he pointed out country made pis­tol towards them and threatened to kill and set fire in the house. Ansar Ahmad took out country made pistol and opened fire on Mohd. Haneef with the in­tention of causing his death. He sustained injury on his abdomen and fell down near drain. When they tried to apprehend Ansar Ahmad, he pointed out country made pis­tol towards them and threatened to kill and set fire in the house. When other persons of the village came at the spot and tried to move forward, he opened fire in the air and threatened to kill them. It created ter­ror in the village. When some peace was restored, taking risk of life, they caught hold of Ansar Ahmad from behind after using necessary force, along with knife, country made pistol, cartridge and fired cartridge. Mukeem Ahmad died at the spot. Ansar Ahmad was given in the 'Supurdigi' of villagers and they carried the injured Mohd. Haneef to the district hospi­tal, Sultanpur. He succumbed to his inju­ries there. On the basis of F.I.R., the case was registered against the accused, Ansar Ahmad under sections 302/504 I.P.C. The investigation was conducted by the then S.O., Sri Jitendra Singh. 3. After registration of the case, Sri Ji­tendra Singh, Investigating Officer, re­corded the statements of the complainant, Zuber Ahmad and Constable-Clerk, Shiv Murti Singh and thereafter, proceeded to the place of occurrence along with other police personnel and reached there at about 06.20 A.M. On the direction of the Investigating Officer, Sri Naimuddin, S.I., prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased, Mukeem Ahmad and other relevant papers and after com­pleting legal formalities, he sealed the dead body of the deceased, Mukeem Ahmad and sent the same for conducting post­mortem. 4. Sri Jitendra Singh, Investigating Officer, recorded the statement of Ansar Ahmad, who was in the custody of villag­ers. On conducting search of the accused in the presence of witnesses, Abdul Rauf and Ishtiyaq Ahmad, one country-made pistol .12 bore and one live cartridge .12 Bore and one fired cartridge .12 bore, from the chamber of country-made pistol, were re­covered. He disclosed that the recovered country made pistol was used in the com­mission of murder of Mohd. Haneef. The accused also handed over one knife to the Investigating Officer and disclosed that he had committed murder of Mukeem Ahmad by the said knife. He disclosed that the recovered country made pistol was used in the com­mission of murder of Mohd. Haneef. The accused also handed over one knife to the Investigating Officer and disclosed that he had committed murder of Mukeem Ahmad by the said knife. The recovery memo was prepared on the spot and after completing legal formalities, recovered articles were sealed separately, and the accused was taken into police custody. Some letters were also recovered from the possession of accused and the recovery memo was prepared on the spot, in the presence of witnesses. The Investigating Officer, in­spected the place of occurrence and pre­pared the site plan. He also recovered one fired cartridge and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence, in the presence of witnesses and recovery memos were prepared and the same were sealed separately. He also recorded statements of other wit­nesses. Thereafter, he resumed to the police station and handed over the accused and deposited recovered articles there vide G.D. report No. 16 at 15.15 hours dated 30.5.2002. On the basis of recovery memo, the case under sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act, was also registered against the accused. 5. The death memo of Mohd. Haneef, who had expired on 30.5.2002, at about 01.50 a.m., at the district hospital. Sultan-pur, was sent by the Medical Officer to the Inspector Incharge, Kotwali Nagar, Sultan-pur. The said information was recorded at G.D. Report No. 3 at 03.10 A.M. dated 30.5.2002, at Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, Sultanpur. Thereafter, SI., R.K. Singh Yadav, proceeded to mortuary at the dis­trict hospital, Sultanpur, and reached there on 30.5.2002 at about 12.20 p.m. He pre­pared the Inquest Report of the dead body of the deceased, Mohd. Haneef and other relevant papers. After completing legal formalities, he sealed the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for conducting post-mortem. 6. Dr. S.K. Goyal, conducted post­mortem of the dead body of the deceased, Mukeem Ahmad on 30.5.2002 at 02.10 p.m. On external examination, he found that the age of the deceased was about 20 years and his death was caused about half day hack. The rigor-mortis was present in all four limbs. He had found the following Ante-mortem injuries on his person: - 1. Incise wound over left side of chest wall 7 cm. below left nipple meas­uring 4 cm. x 1.5 cm. x cavity deep. 2. The rigor-mortis was present in all four limbs. He had found the following Ante-mortem injuries on his person: - 1. Incise wound over left side of chest wall 7 cm. below left nipple meas­uring 4 cm. x 1.5 cm. x cavity deep. 2. Incise wound over left wrist joint below left thumb measuring 1 cm. x 0.6 cm x muscle deep. On internal examination, Dr. S.K. Goyal, found that left plaura was torn and lacerated and left pleural cavity was full of blood. Left lung was torn and lacerated and peritoneum was also lacerated. Both chambers of heart were empty. He opined that his death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortein injury No. 1. 7. Dr. S.K. Goyal, had also conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased, Mohd. Haneef on 30.5.2002 at 03.00 P.M. On external examination, he found that the age of the deceased was about 60 years and his death was caused on 30.5.2002, at 01.50 A.M., as per report of the district hospital, Sutanpur. The rigor mortis, was found present in all four limbs. He had found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person : 1. Fire-arm wound of entry in an area of right inguinal region of triangular shape, 8cm 6 cm 7 cm Arm of triangle are 6 cm., 7 cm., 8 cm. in length and injury is cavity deep from which intestinal part is coming out from the wound. Blackening, charring and tattooing present around the wound. Margins are inverted. On opening right femoral vessels, one torn and lacerated and right pelvic bone are fractured. Two wadd pieces and forty small metallic pellets recovered. 2. Abrasion over left forearm meas­uring 2 cm. x 2-cm. near left wrist. On internal examination, Dr. S.K. Goyal found that both the chambers of heart were empty and peritoneum was lac­erated. Small intestine was punctured at the places and large intestine was lacer­ated. He opined that his death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem firearm injury No. 1. 8. After completing investigation, Sri Jitendra Singh, Investing Officer, filed charge-sheet under sections 302/504 I.P.C. against the accused. 9. The investigation of the case under sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act against the accused was entrusted to Sri Munnu lal Venna, S.I., and after his trans­fer, Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singhal, H.C.P., conducted .the investigation. 8. After completing investigation, Sri Jitendra Singh, Investing Officer, filed charge-sheet under sections 302/504 I.P.C. against the accused. 9. The investigation of the case under sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act against the accused was entrusted to Sri Munnu lal Venna, S.I., and after his trans­fer, Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singhal, H.C.P., conducted .the investigation. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan. He had also recorded the state-nents of the prosecution witnesses. After its transfer, remaining investigation was inducted by Sri Vijay Singh, S.I. After ompleting investigation, he had filed harge-sheets under sections 3/25 and/25 of the Arms Act, separately, against \e accused. 10. After taking cognizance of of­fences, learned Magistrate committed the case relating to the accused to the Court of sessions for trial. 11. The accused, Ansar Ahmad, was charged under sections 302 and 504 I.P.C. and 3/25 and 4/25 Arms Act. He pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. 12. The prosecution examined Sri Zuber Ahmad Ansari, P.W.-l, Sri Abdul Rauf, P.W.-2, Sri Shiv Murti Singh, Consta­ble-Clerk, P.W.-3, Dr. S.K. Goyal, P.W.-4. Sri Naimuddin, S.I., P.W.-5, Sri Ram Chandra Pathak, Arms Clerk, P.W.-6, Sri R.K. Singh Yadav, S.I., P.W.-7, Sri Jitendra Singh, S.I., P.W.-8, Sri Vijai Singh, S.I., P.W.-9 and Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singhal, H.C.P, P.W.-10, in support of its case. 13. The informant, Sri Zuber Ahmad Ansari, P.W.-l, has proved the written report, Exhibit Ka-1. Sri Abdul Rauf, P.W.-2, has proved Panchayatnama of the dead body of the deceased Mukeem Ahmad, Exhibit Ka-4, recovery memo of fired car­tridge. Exhibit Ka-5, recovery memo of simple and blood stained soil, Exhibit Ka-6, recovery memo of country-made pistol, live and fired cartridge and knife. Exhibit Kd-7, Panchayatnama of the dead body of the deceased, Mohd. Haneef, Exhibit Ka-8. He has also identified country made pistol of .12 bore, fired cartridges and one live cartridge, Exhibits 1 to 6, knife, Exhibit-7, simple and blood stained soil, Exhibits 8 and 9, clothes of the deceased, Mukeem Ahmad, Exhibits 10 to 12 and the clothes of deceased, Mohd. Haneef, 13 and 14. Haneef, Exhibit Ka-8. He has also identified country made pistol of .12 bore, fired cartridges and one live cartridge, Exhibits 1 to 6, knife, Exhibit-7, simple and blood stained soil, Exhibits 8 and 9, clothes of the deceased, Mukeem Ahmad, Exhibits 10 to 12 and the clothes of deceased, Mohd. Haneef, 13 and 14. Sri Shivmurti Singh, P.W.-3, has proved Chik F.I.R. under sections 302/504 I.P.C, Exhibit Ka-9, Photostat copy of Chik F.I.R. and chik F.I.R. under sections 3/25 and 4/25 of Arms Act, Exhibits Ka-10 and 11, copy of G.D. Report No. 4, at 04.10 a.m., dated 30.5.2002, Exhibit Ka-12, copy of G.D. report No. 16, at 15.15 hours, dated 30.5.2002, Exhibit Ka-13 and copy of G.D. Exhibit Ka-14. 14. Dr. S.K. Goyal, P.W.-4, has proved the post-mortem reports of the deceased, Mukeem Ahmad and Mohd. Haneef, Ex­hibits Ka-15 and 16. Sri Naimuddin, S.I., P.W.-5, has proved the Panchayatnama of the dead body of the deceased, Mukeem Ahmad, Exhibit Ka-4, the recovery memo, Exhibit Ka-7, the reports to R.I. and CMS. for getting the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased Mukeem Ahmad, conducted. Exhibits Ka 17 and Ka-20. Dia­gram of the dead body of the deceased. Exhibit Ka-18, Challan Lash-Exhibit, Ka-19, specimen of seal, Exhibit Ka-21 and copy of Chik F.I.R. under sections 302/504 I.P.C. Sri Ram Chandra Pathak, P.W.-6, has proved the order dated 25.6.2002 of the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, granting permission to prosecute the accused under section 3/25 Arms Act, Exhibit Ka-23. Sri R.K. Singh Yadav, S.I., P.W.-7, has proved the Panchayatnama, Exhibit Ka-8, diagram of the dead body of the deceased, Mohd. Haneef, Exhibit Ka-24, copy of G.D. Report dated 30.5.2002, P.S.-Kotwali Nagar, Sul­tanpur, Exhibit Ka-25, Challan Lash, Ex­hibit Ka-26, report to R.I. and C.M.O. for getting the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased Mohd. Haneef conducted. Exhibits Ka-27 and Ka-28, specimen of seal, Exhibit, Ka-29, and death memo of de­ceased, Mohd. Haneef, Exhibit, K-a-30. Sri Jitendra Singh, Investing Officer, P.W.-8, has proved the recovery memos, Exhibits Ka-5 to Ka-7, recovery memo of letters re­covered from the possession of accused Exhibit, Ka-31, letters. Exhibits Ka-32 to Ka-34, photocopy of letters. Exhibits Ka 35 & Ka 36, site plan under sections 302/504 I.P.C. Exhibit, Ka-37, and charge-sheet un­der sections 302/504, I.P.C., Exhibit, Ka-38. He has also identified the material, Exhibits 1 to 14. Exhibits Ka-32 to Ka-34, photocopy of letters. Exhibits Ka 35 & Ka 36, site plan under sections 302/504 I.P.C. Exhibit, Ka-37, and charge-sheet un­der sections 302/504, I.P.C., Exhibit, Ka-38. He has also identified the material, Exhibits 1 to 14. Sri Vijay Singh, S.I., P.W.-9, has proved the charge-sheets under sections 3/25 & 4/25 Anns Act, Exhibits Ka-39 & Ka-40. Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singhal, H.C.P., P.W.-10, has proved the site plan under sections 3/25 and 4/25 Arms Act, Exhibit Ka-41 and and copy of G.D., Exhibit Ka-14. 15. In his statement, accused has de­nied the charges levelled against him. He has also filed his written statement'under section 313 Cr.P.C. and has stated that he himself, deceased Mukeem, Zuber and Ishtiyaq used to do the work of tailoring. Mukeem and his family members sus­pected that he used to win over their cus­tomers and there had been altercation be­tween him and Mukeem and others several times and on account of it, they were in­imical to him. There was no illicit relation­ship between his wife and the deceased, Mukeem, and he had no suspicion about it. He had children at that time. He had not committed murder of the deceased, Mukeem and Haneef. The police personnel arrested him from his house on the next day and carried to the police station and the recovery of knife, country-made pistol and letters has been shown falsely. The F.I.R. was lodged with the consultation of S.I. 16. The accused examined Sri lal Mohd., D.W.-l and Sri Sultan Ahmad, D.W.-2, in his defence. 17. After appraisal of evidence on re­cord and hearing learned Counsel for both the parties, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. IV, Sultanpur, convicted and sentenced the accused Ansar Ahmad, under sections 302 I.P.C. 3/25 and 4/25 Arms Act vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2003, as referred to above. Feeling aggrieved by the said judg­ment and order, the accused has preferred this appeal. 18. We have heard Sri Satish Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appel­lant, Zeba Islam Siddiqui, learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record 19. Feeling aggrieved by the said judg­ment and order, the accused has preferred this appeal. 18. We have heard Sri Satish Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appel­lant, Zeba Islam Siddiqui, learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record 19. Learned Counsel for the appellant-has submitted that both the alleged ocular witnesses of the incident, are closely re­lated with the deceased and their testimo­nies have not been corroborated by inde­pendent witnesses and hence, their testi­monies should not have been relied upon by the learned Trial Court; that the alleged arrest of the appellant from the alleged place of occurrence and recovery of arms etc. from his possession is most doubtful; that the medical evidence has not corrobo­rated the oral testimonies of the prosecu­tion witnesses and there are material dis­crepancies between the medical and oral evidence; that the place of occurrence has not been fully established by the prosecu­tion; that the Investigating Officer has not taken into possession the cot and KATHRI, on which the deceased was allegedly sleep­ing and also the clothes of the accused; that the appellant had no motive to commit offence; that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, he deserves acquittal. In sup­port of his contentions, he has placed reli­ance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court: 1. Bir Singli and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1978 (15) ACC 118 (SC). It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that "Where all the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution had serious animus against the accused and were in­terested in implicating the accused and neither independent witnesses were ex­amined nor any reasonable explanation was given by the prosecution, the Court would be justified in drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution." 2. Sri Rabindra Kumar Dry v. State of Orissn., 1977 (14) ACC 97 (SC). Apex Court held that three cardinal principles of criminal jurispru­dence are well-settled, namely: (1) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case; (2) that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and (3) that the onus of the prosecution never shifts, 3. (Allahabad High Court). (Allahabad High Court). Bhagwati Daval Singh and another v. State of U.P., 1998 (37) ACC 188. It has been held by this Court that in a criminal trial-while the prosecution is required to prove its case to the hilt be­yond all reasonable doubts, the defence is obliged to put up a probable case only. Once the defence case is probable, the prosecution version is shaken and thus, it becomes doubtful. 4. (Allahabad High Court), Surat Singh and others v. State of U.P., 1998 (36) ACC (H) 15. 5. (Allahabad High Court) Roop Chand v. The State., 1996 Cri. LJ 4284 = 1996 ACC 52 (Sum.). It has been held by this Court that the conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of evidence of recovery of knite, from the open place, which was accessi­ble to all. 6. State of Raiasthan v. Mohan lal and others, 2010 (3) JIC 528 (SC). In the instant case, no effort was made by any witness including son of the deceased to save the deceased from the accused and on account of unnatural conduct of the witnesses, their presence at the spot was found doubtful. 20. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that both the ocu­lar witnesses have supported the prosecu­tion version and their testimonies have been corroborated by the medical evidence and there is no discrepancy between the oral and medical evidence. He has further submitted that the accused was appre­hended alongwith weapons used in com­mission of offence just after the incident and there was no valid reason to implicate the accused falsely. His contention is that the prosecution has established the charges levelled against the accused beyond rea­sonable doubt and he has been rightly con­victed and' sentenced by the learned Trial Court and no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2003. 21. Sri Zuber Ahmad Ansari, P.W.-l, has stated that the incident took place in the intervening night between 29th and 30th May, 2002 at about 00.30 A.M. In the night of the incident, his uncle, Mohd. Haneef and his cousin brother, Mukeem Ahmad, were sleeping in OSARE of the house. He was sleeping beneath his thatch, which lies towards north at the distance of 6-7 steps from the place where Haneef was sleeping. His uncle Abdul Rauf and his son Siraj Ahmad, were sleeping outside. Haneef and his cousin brother, Mukeem Ahmad, were sleeping in OSARE of the house. He was sleeping beneath his thatch, which lies towards north at the distance of 6-7 steps from the place where Haneef was sleeping. His uncle Abdul Rauf and his son Siraj Ahmad, were sleeping outside. The accused, Ansar Ahmad, armed with knife and hurling abuses, came at the spot and inflicted knife blow forcefully on the chest of Mukeem Ahmad, with the intention of causing his death. They ran and raised alarm. In the meantime, Mohd. Haneef caught hold of Ansar Ahmad. Then, Ansar Ahmad took out country-made pistol from his pocket and opened fire on Mohd. Haneef. He sustained injuries and fell down near drain. The electric bulb was on at his OSARH and also on the pole lying infront of OSARE. When they tried to ap­prehend Ansar Ahmad, he pointed out country-made pistol towards them and gave threats to open fire and set fire in the house. Several other persons of the village came at the spot and after 4-6 minutes, ac­cused was apprehended. Prior to it, he opened fire in the air. He was apprehended along with knife, country made pistol .12 bore, one live cartridge and two fired car­tridges. Mukeem Ahmad succumbed to his injuries at the spot. They handed over An­sar Ahmad in the Supurdigi of villagers and carried the injured Mohd. Haneef to district hospital and reached there at about 01.30-1.45 a.m. After 5-7 minutes, he suc­cumbed to injuries there. Sri Abdul Rauf, P.W.-2, has fully corroborated the testi­mony of Sri Zuber Ahmad Ansari, P.W.-l. We have scrutinized the statements of the said ocular witnesses thoroughly and care­fully and are of the view that their testimo­nies are worthy of reliance. The minor dis­crepancies in the statements of the ocular witnesses are most natural and their testi­monies cannot be discarded merely on the ground of minor discrepancies in their statements. They are the most natural wit­nesses of the incident and their testimonies cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that they are closely related with the deceased. They would be the least dis­posed to falsely implicate the accused or substitute him in place of the real culprit. It is a matter of common experience that the independent persons, generally, do not dare to give evidence against the accused on account of fear. They would be the least dis­posed to falsely implicate the accused or substitute him in place of the real culprit. It is a matter of common experience that the independent persons, generally, do not dare to give evidence against the accused on account of fear. The mis-carriage of jus­tice is inevitable, if in each and every case the testimonies of die witnesses, who are closely related with the deceased, are re­quired to be corroborated by the independ­ent evidence. 22. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the other witnesses named in the F.I.R. have not been examined by the prosecution without any suffi­cient ground. In our view, the prosecution is not bound to produce all ocular wit­nesses to prove a particular fact. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which matters more in criminal cases to prove a particular fact. NO adverse infer­ence can he drawn against the prosecution on the ground of non-examination of other ocular witnesses of the incident. The evi­dence produced on behalf of the prosecu­tion is sufficient to establish the charges levelled against the accused. 23. In the case of Bir Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), the occur­rence took place as a result of chronic dis­pute between two factions in the village. The complainant and the witnesses exam­ined by the prosecutioft to prove its case bear serious animus against the appellants and were interested. Learned Sessions Judge, acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution has examined only inimical witnesses and failed to examine two independent eye-witnesses, who were named in the F.I.R. The appeal was filed by the State of U.P. in the High Court against the order of acquittal. The High Court took a different view and reversed the order of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the accused preferred the ap­peal against the conviction in the Hon'ble Apex Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is diffi­cult to hold that the view taken by the Ses­sions Judge on the evidence and circum­stances of the present case was not rea­sonably possible. This being the position, the High Court even if chose to take a dif­ferent view, was not justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This being the position, the High Court even if chose to take a dif­ferent view, was not justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The facts of the instant case are quite different .and this ap­peal has been preferred against the order of conviction. The defence version is that the accused and the deceased, Mukesm Ahmad and his family members, Zuber and Ishtiyaq used to do the work of tailor­ing. The deceased, Mukeem Ahmad and his family members suspected that the ac­cused used to win over their customers and on account of it, there had been altercation between them several times and the ac­cused has been falsely implicated due to enmity. The defence version of alleged en­mity, between the accused and deceased and the ocular witnesses of the incident, is not worthy of reliance, particularly, when no reliable evidence has been produced to establish the said enmity. In our view, every case has to be judged on the particu­lar facts and circumstances of the case and the appellant' is not entitled to get any benefit on the basis of the principle of law laid down in the said case (supra). In the instant case, non-examination of other ocu­lar witnesses named in the F.I.R. has not affected the prosecution case adversely. 24. From the testimonies of Sri Zuber Ahmad Ansari, P.W.-l, and Sri Abdul Rauf, P.W.-2, it is clear that there was light at the spot at the time of occurrence and the accused Ansar Ahmad was appre­hended alongwith weapons used in the commission of offence, just after the inci­dent. They handed over the accused to other villagers and carried the injured Mohd. Rauf to district hospital for treat­ment. The minor discrepancies in the statements of these witnesses cannot form the basis to discard the prosecution ver­sion. 25. The Investigating Officer, Sri Jitendra Singh, P.W.-8, alongwith Sri Naimud-din, S.I., P.W.-5 and other police personnel reached at the spot on 30.5.2002 at about 06.20 a.m. On the direction of the Investi­gating Officer, Sri Naimuddin, S.I., pre­pared the inquest report of the deceased, Mukeem Ahmad and other relevant pa­pers. The search of the accused was con­ducted at the spot by Sri Jitendra Singh, S.I., P.W.-8, in presence of Sri Naimuddin, S.I., P.W.-5 and Sri Abdul Rauf, P.W.-2, who was in the custody of the villagers. The search of the accused was con­ducted at the spot by Sri Jitendra Singh, S.I., P.W.-8, in presence of Sri Naimuddin, S.I., P.W.-5 and Sri Abdul Rauf, P.W.-2, who was in the custody of the villagers. The country made pistol .12 bore and the knife used in the commission of offence and live and fired cartridges were recov­ered from the possession of the accused and after completing legal formalities, the same were sealed at the spot. The testimo­nies of the witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of minor discrepan­cies in their statements. The prosecution has filed the reports of Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, U.P., Lucknow, Exhibits Ka 2 and Ka 3, which indicate that blood was found on knife, but, it was degenerated and on account of it, its origin could not be ascertained anil after scientific examina­tion, it revealed that the country-made pis­tol .12 bore recovered from the possession of the accused was used in the commission of offence. Thus, from the evidence on re­cord, the recovery of knife and country-made pistol .12 bore from the possession of the accused and use of said weapons in the commission of offence, has been fully es­tablished. 26. In the case of Roop Chand v. The State (supra), the accused was not appre­hended at the spot, just after the incident, but, in the instant case, the accused was apprehended at the spot just after the inci­dent along with the weapons used in the commission of offence. He remained in the custody of villagers during night and thereafter, weapons were recovered from his possession by the police in presence of witnesses. 27. Dr. S.K. Goyal, P.W.-4, has con­ducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased, Mukeem Ahmad, and Mohd. Haneef and he prepared their post­mortem reports. Exhibits K-15 & K-16, re­spectively. From the statement of Dr. S.K. Goyal, P.W.-4, coupled with, the post­mortem reports of the dead body of the deceased, it is clear that the death of the deceased, Mukeem Ahmad could be caused in the intervening night between 29th and 30th May, 2002 at about 00.30 A.M. on account of injury caused by knife and the death of Mohd. Haneef was caused on 30.5.2002 at about 01.50 A.M. at the dis­trict hospital, Sultanpur, on account of in­jury caused by firearm. Haneef was caused on 30.5.2002 at about 01.50 A.M. at the dis­trict hospital, Sultanpur, on account of in­jury caused by firearm. In his cross-examination, he has stated that if the fire is made from the distance of 1 to 3 feet, blackening, tattooing and scorching, would be caused and the size of wound would tally to the dimension of barrel. The injury No. 1 of the deceased, Mohd. Haneef was not round in shape and it was in triangular shape. The injury No. 1 was caused on the fold of thigh of Mohd. Haneef and it could be in triangular shape. The country made pistol .12 bore; used in the commission of offence, was not a standard firearm. The deceased, Mohd. Haneef, aged about 60 years, caught hold of the accused aged about 35-40 years and it was not possible for the accused to remain static. The state­ment of the Medical Officer clearly indi­cates that the triangular injury could have been caused to Mohd. Haneef by the fire­arm. Thus, the medical evidence has also corroborated the oral testimonies of ocular witnesses and there is no inconsistency between the medical and oral evidence produced by the prosecution. 28. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case in Ramanand Yadav v. Prabu Nath fha and others, 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 526 has held that: "So far as the alleged variance be­tween medical evidence and ocular evi­dence is concerned, it is trite law that oral evidence has to get primacy and medical evidence is basically opiniona-tive. It is only when the medical evi­dence specifically rules out the injury as is claimed to have been inflicted as per the oral testimony, then only in a given case the Court has to draw adverse in­ference." 29. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case in State of Rajasthan v. Bhamvar Singh., 2004 (50) ACC 443 (SC) has held that: - "C. Criminal Trial-Appreciation of evidence-Contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments-Ocular and medical evidence-Inconsistency-Held, though ocular evidence has to be given primacy over medical evidence, where the medical evidence totally improbabilises the ocular version that can be taken to be a fact to affect credibility of the prosecution case." 30. In the instant case, the medical evi­dence has neither ruled out the injuries as are claimed to have been inflicted as per oral testimonies of the ocular witnesses nor has totally improbabilised the ocular ver­sion. In the instant case, the medical evi­dence has neither ruled out the injuries as are claimed to have been inflicted as per oral testimonies of the ocular witnesses nor has totally improbabilised the ocular ver­sion. Under these circumstances, in view of principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the said cases, oral evidence has to be given primacy over the medical evidence. From the medical evidence cou­pled with oral testimonies of the ocular witnesses, the charges levelled against the accused have been fully established. 31. From the statement of Sri Jitendra Singh, I.O., P.W.-8, it is clear that he had inspected the place of occurrence and had recovered the sample of blood stained and simple earth from the spot. He had also recovered the fired cartridge from the spot, which was sent to Vidhi Vigyan Prayog-shala, U.P., Lucknow for examination. The report of Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, U.P., Lucknow. Exhibit Ka-3, clearly indicates that the said recovered cartridge from the spot relate to the fire made by the country-made pistol .12 bore, which was recovered from the possession of the accused. Sri lal Mohd. D.W.-l, has stated that Mukeem Ahmad was murdered at about midnight-01.00 a.m. On hearing hue and cry and sound of firing, he reached at the spot. The electric was on and Mukeem Ahmad had succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Mohd. Haneef was also lying there, but, he was alive. Sri Sultan Ahmad, D.W.-2, has also stated that on hearing hue and cry and sound of firing, he reached at the spot at about mid night-01.00 a.m. Several persons had assembled there. Mukeem was lying dead on account of sustaining injuries. Haneef was lying in an injured state. Thus, place of occurrence has been established even from the statements of defence wit­nesses. We are of the view that the prose­cution has fully established the place of occurrence and there is no sufficient ground to entertain any doubt in respect or the place of occurrence. 32. Sri Jitendra Singh, I.O., P.W.-8, has stated in his cross-examination that in the site plan, there is mention of place of oc­currence but, there is no mention of cot on which Mukeem Ahmad was murdered. He had not taken cot into his possession. He had also not taken clothes of the accused into his possession. 32. Sri Jitendra Singh, I.O., P.W.-8, has stated in his cross-examination that in the site plan, there is mention of place of oc­currence but, there is no mention of cot on which Mukeem Ahmad was murdered. He had not taken cot into his possession. He had also not taken clothes of the accused into his possession. There is no mention in the case diary that the blood was found on the clothes of the accused. Thus, the Inves­tigating Officer had neither taken cot and KATHRI lying-thereon, on which the ac­cused, Mukeem Ahmad was murdered nor the clothes of the accused into his posses­sion, during investigation. These are minor irregularities and minor irregularities in the investigation would not make out a valid ground to disbelieve the testimonies of ocular witnesses, which are otherwise worthy of reliance. 33. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accused had no mo­tive to commit the offence and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. 34. From the statement of Sri Jitendra Singh, I.O., P.W.-8, it transpires that five letters relating to some love affair, Exhibits K.-32 to K-36, were also 'recovered from the possession of the accused at the time of his arrest by the police. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not think it necessary to take specimen of the signatures of the accused, Ansar Ahmad and his wife, because, it was not clear as to by whom, these letters were written. Thus, it has not been established by reliable evi­dence as to by whom the said letters were written. 35. Sri Zuber Ahmad Ansari, P.W.-l, has stated that a week prior to the incident, there had been altercation between the ac­cused, Ansar Ahmad and the deceased Mukeem Ahmad, in connection with illicit relationship of Mukeem Ahmad with the wife of Ansar Ahamd. They intervened. Thereafter, Ansar Ahmad went away say­ing that he would shot dead Mukeem Ahmad. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not written the said facts in the report, because, he forget to write the same. He had stated the said facts to the I.O., but, he cannot give any explanation, if he had not written the said facts in his statement. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not written the said facts in the report, because, he forget to write the same. He had stated the said facts to the I.O., but, he cannot give any explanation, if he had not written the said facts in his statement. Sri Jitendra Singh, I.O., P.W.-8, has stated in his cross-examination that the said facts have not been mentioned in the statement of the witness, Zuber Ahmad, recorded in the case diary. Thus, the said facts have neither been mentioned in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of Zuber Ahmad Ansari, P.W.-l, recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and he has stated the said facts for the first time before the Court. 36. Sri Abdul Rauf, P.W.-2, has stated that house of the accused, Ansar Ahmad is adjacent to his house towards south. He had heard a rumour that Bilkis Bano, wife of the accused, Ansar Ahmad had illicit relationship with his nephew, the deceased Mukeem Ahmad', but, none had seen about it. They had scolded Mukeem Ahmad and had sent a message to the mother of the accused to have an eye on her conduct. On account of it, the accused, Ansar Ahmad had enmity internally. According to prose­cution, th«» wife of the accused, Ansar Ahmad had illicit relationship with the deceased, Mukeem Ahmad and on account of said enmity, he had committed the of­fence. The illicit relationship between the concerned persons is always a secret affair between them and it is difficult to produce direct evidence about it. In each and even case it is not possible for the prosecution to establish the exact motive of commission of offence, because, it is specially within the knowledge of the culprit. Besides it, the motive of commission of offence loses its importance when the case is based on di­rect evidence. In the instant case, there is direct evidence against the accused and hence, motive to commit offence has lost its importance. The prosecution case cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the direct evidence, which was not possible in the instant case, has not been produced to establish the motive of the commission of offence. 37. In the instant case, there is direct evidence against the accused and hence, motive to commit offence has lost its importance. The prosecution case cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the direct evidence, which was not possible in the instant case, has not been produced to establish the motive of the commission of offence. 37. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mohan lal and others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, in para 6 of its judgment, has held as under: "Though in all cases the conduct of persons would not be determinative, it would depend on several factors. In the present case, undoubtedly four persons who claimed to have witnessed the oc­currence did not make any effort to save the deceased from the assaults made by the accused persons. P.W.I was the son of the deceased. The High Court noticed that the presence of so-called eye­witnesses was practically was not ac­ceptable because of the various varia­tions in the statement made during in­vestigation and made in the Court." 38. In the instant case, the accused in­flicted the knife blow on the deceased, Mukeem Ahmad and just thereafter, his father. Mohd. Haneef caught hold of him, but, the accused also opened fire on him by country made pistol and consequently, Mohd. Haneef also sustained firearm inju­ries and succumbed to his injuries in the district hospital, Sultanpur, where he was carried for treatment just after the incident. Thereafter, the accused was also appre­hended at the spot along with weapons used in the commission of offence and after his arrest, on medical examination, some injuries were also found on his person. Thus, the said case State of Rajasthan v. Mohan lal and others (supra), is distinguish­able on facts and is of no help to the appel­lant. 39. From perusal of the statements of Sri lal Mohammad, D.W. 1 and Sri Sultan Ahmad, D.W.2, it transpire that on hearing hue and cry and sound of fire, they reached at the spot at about midnight. They saw that Mukeem Ahmad was lying dead and Mohd. Haneef was also lying after sustain­ing injuries. They enquired from Zuber Ahmad and others as to who has assaulted them. They replied that they could not rec­ognize the assailants. Accused Ansar Ahmad was also present at the spot, but, he was neither apprehended nor detained there. -No arm was recovered from his pos­session. Haneef was also lying after sustain­ing injuries. They enquired from Zuber Ahmad and others as to who has assaulted them. They replied that they could not rec­ognize the assailants. Accused Ansar Ahmad was also present at the spot, but, he was neither apprehended nor detained there. -No arm was recovered from his pos­session. The police has arrested him from his house. Sri lal Mohammad, D.W.I has stated in his cross-examination that the accused Ansar Ahmad is his cousin brother and Nafees is son of his mother and Haneof. The name of his father is Jamai-yatdin and he is alive. In this matter, panchayat was held in the community and as per direction of the panchayat, social relationship with his family was cut off for two years. The deceased Mukeem and Haneef were also involved in the said deci­sion of the panchayat. Sri Sultan Ahmad, D.W.2 has stated in his cross-examination that there had been no conversation be­tween him and Ansar Ahmad either at the time of incident or thereafter. Ansar Ahmad is also related to him as uncle. The statements of these witnesses indicate that they reached at the spot after the incident and accused Ansar Ahmad was also pre­sent there. They are related with the ac­cused and Sri lal Mohammad, D.W.I was also inimical to the deceased. It is not pos­sible to place reliance on their testimonies, because, there is overwhelming evidence available on the record against the accused. 40. Accused Ansar Ahmad was ap­prehended at the spot just after the inci­dent. There was no doubt about the iden­tity of the accused as the electric light was available at the time of occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged promptly and the ac­cused was named in the F.I.R. The knife and country-made pistol .12 bore, used in the commission of the offence, were recov­ered from the possession of the accused. The fired cartridge was also recovered from the spot. The report of Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, U.P., Lucknow has estab­lished that the fire, relating to fired car­tridge recovered from the spot, was done by the country-made pistol .12 bore, recov­ered from the possession of the accused. Sri Zuber Ahmad Ansari, P.W.I and Sri Abdul Rauf, P.W.2 are the most natural witnesses of the incident. Their oral testimonies have been corroborated by medical evidence. Sri Zuber Ahmad Ansari, P.W.I and Sri Abdul Rauf, P.W.2 are the most natural witnesses of the incident. Their oral testimonies have been corroborated by medical evidence. There is direct evidence against the ac­cused and his complicity in the commis­sion of the offence has been fully estab­lished. There was no valid or sufficient ground to implicate the accused falsely in the instant case. The prosecution has suc­ceeded in establishing the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 41. After perusal of the evidence available on record thoroughly, we are of the view that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appel­lant under sections 302 I.P.C., 3/25 and 4/25 Arms Act and no interference is war­ranted. 42. In view of foregoing discussions, we are of the view that this appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. The conviction and sentence of the appellant, Ansar Ahmad, recorded by the learned Trial Court, are upheld. 43. The appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the remaining sentence awarded to him. 44. The original record along with cer­tified copy of the judgment be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith for neces­sary compliance.