Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 26.8.2006 passed in Session Trial No. 268/2000 arising out of Case Crime No. 17/2000, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Ashivan District Unnao. By the judgment under challenge the trial court convicted the appellants Jitendra and Satyendra who are sons of Rajendra Singh, and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each with default stipulation. In brief the facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summed up as under:- 1. A FIR was lodged on 26.1.2000 at 2.00 a.m. by Shyama Kumar Singh, who happens to be the uncle of the deceased Viresh Kumar. Viresh Kumar got some land from his maternal grand uncle in village Udshah and thereafter he started living in the said village while Shyama Kumar Singh is resident of village Osia, P.S. Fathepur, District Unnao. 2. As per prosecution version on 25.1.2000 the complainant Shyama Kumar Singh met his nephew Viresh Kumar Singh in village Safipur, from there they came to village Udshah on motorcycle. The motor cycle was parked by them near the hospital, situated on the outskirts of the village Udshah, because from there the road to the village was very muddy. After parking the motorcycle both were going towards the house of the deceased Viresh. On their way they met Bhola Singh, Shankar Singh and Har Sahai, while conversing with each other when they reached in front of the house of Babu Singh then accused Babu Singh, Jitendra Singh and Satyendra Singh who are all the real brother and Munna Singh @ Pradeep Sing who is brother-in-law of Babu Singh, who was residing for a long time in village Udshah, armed with country made pistol exhorted Viresh that they shall teach him a lesson for Pradhani of the village and also started abusing him. Viresh asked them not to abuse then Babu Singh aimed him country made pistol towards Viresh. Viresh in order to save his life ran towards the house and all the four accused persons chased Viresh. Viresh entered into the house of Harish Chandra (Dhobi). All the accused persons trespassed into the house of Harish Chandra (Dhobi). Accused persons fired at him in the courtyard of Harish Chandra causing his instantaneous death. Viresh in order to save his life ran towards the house and all the four accused persons chased Viresh. Viresh entered into the house of Harish Chandra (Dhobi). All the accused persons trespassed into the house of Harish Chandra (Dhobi). Accused persons fired at him in the courtyard of Harish Chandra causing his instantaneous death. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that this occurrence has taken place in conspiracy with Narendra Singh. 3. F.I.R. of this case (Ex. Ka-1) was lodged by Shyama Kumar Singh and on the basis of it, Chik Report (Exhibit Ka-2) and G.D.(Exhibit Ka-3) were prepared. I.O. went to the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report on 26.1.2000 and after preparing the other papers (Exhibit Ka-8 to Ka-11) sent the dead body for postmortem. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Qureshi on 26.1.2000 at 2.10 p.m. 4. The I.O. Inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site-plan (Exhibit Ka-12) and recovered 3 empty cartridges of 315 bore and prepared Fard of recovery Exhibit Ka-13. Blood stained and plain earth was also taken into custody by the I.O. and its Fard Exhibit Ka-14 was prepared. During the course of investigation on 29.1.2000 accused Bhola Singh, Jitendra Singh and Sattyendra Singh were arrested by the police and from the possession of Bhola Singh and Jitendra Singh each one country made pistol of 315 bore and 2 live cartridges of 315 bore were recovered and nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of accused Satyendra Singh. 5. The Fard recovery of the said arms was prepared on the same day and on the basis of this Fard, chik report Exhibit Ka-17 was prepared and G.D. for registration of the case Exhibit Ka-19 was prepared. The I.O. of the case who has inspected the case under Section 25 of the Arms Act and prepared the site plan (Exhibit Ka-5). After completion of the investigation charge sheet under Section 302 IPC (Exhibit Ka-15) was filed and charge sheet under the Arms Act (Exhibit Ka-16) was filed. The cloths of the deceased with plain and blood stained earth and recovered C.M.P. were sent to Forensic Laboratories for examination and its docket Ka-16 and Forensic Lab report is Exhibit Ka-22. The prosecution also examined some material Exhibit-1 to 9. 6. The cloths of the deceased with plain and blood stained earth and recovered C.M.P. were sent to Forensic Laboratories for examination and its docket Ka-16 and Forensic Lab report is Exhibit Ka-22. The prosecution also examined some material Exhibit-1 to 9. 6. After investigation, the police did not file any charge sheet against the accused Narendra Singh and Babu Singh and Munna Singh died during the trial, therefore, the case against them was abated. 7. Accused Babu Singh and Jitendra Singh were tried for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act in S.T. No. 267/2000. Case against Babu Singh abated and Jitendra Singh was acquitted under Section 25 Arms Act. Both these S.T. were tried together. 8. According to the evidence of Dr. Dinesh Kumar these injuries could have been caused at the time of alleged occurrence, however, he has stated that the other injury which was not firearm injury could have been caused by Lathi and Dandas. 9. As per the postmortem report Exhibit Ka-4 the following injuries were found on the person of the deceased. 1.Firearm injury of entry wound 4x2 c.m. Through as through on parolid region near lower end of ear lobule, the blackening present margin inverted. 2.Exit wound 1c.m. X 1 c.m. x communicating to injury 1 on right side neck 6cm below the lower and right ear lobule margin everted. 3.Abraded contusion 6 c.m. x 6 c.m. on right side chest 4 c.m. Below right nipple at 4 o' clock position. 4.Firearm entry wound 1.5 c.m. X 1.5 c.m. x cavity deep left side chest 5 c.m. Below and medial to left nipple at 4 o clock position margin inverted. 5.Firearm entry wound 1c.m. x 1 c.m. x cavity deep right side through and through to injury 8, 8 c.m. Away from right nipple 2 o' clock position margin inverted. 6.Lacerated wound 2 c.m. x c.m. x muscle deep right side chest 6 c.m. away from right nipple. 7.Abraded contusion 5 c.m. x c.m. below 8 c.m. to injury no.3 right side literally placed. 8.Exit wound 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. x through and through x 8 c.m. below lower and right side chest communicating to injury no.4 margin everted. 10. 7.Abraded contusion 5 c.m. x c.m. below 8 c.m. to injury no.3 right side literally placed. 8.Exit wound 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. x through and through x 8 c.m. below lower and right side chest communicating to injury no.4 margin everted. 10. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined ten witnesses, out of whom P.W. 1 Shyama Kumar Singh and P.W. 2 Bhola Singh were witnesses of fact and the other witnesses were of the formal nature. Details of the evidence shall be discussed in the remaining part of the judgment at the relevant place. 11. The judgment of the learned trial court has been assailed on the ground that the complainant Shyama Kumar Singh is a chance witness, he resides in a village which is 22 Kilometer away from the place of occurrence. It was only after procuring his attendance the FIR was lodged and therefore, unusual delay in lodging the FIR was caused. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the complainant was not an eye witness of the occurrence. It is further submitted that in the inquest report and other connected papers the name of the accused persons were not mentioned and on the basis of this it is argued that the F.I.R. was not in existence at the time when the inquest proceedings took place. It is further argued that the Investigating Officer has not mentioned time of starting and concluding the investigation in every Parcha. It is further submitted that the special report in this case was submitted before the Magistrate with inordinate delay which casts doubt on the alleged time of lodging of the FIR. 12. The argument of learned defence counsel is also that the deceased had illicit relation with the wife of Harish Chandra, washer-man (Dhhobi) and therefore, he was killed in that house by the inmate of the house in the night and none had witnessed the occurrence and this false case, because of old enmity, was concocted against them. 13. It is further argued that the Investigating Officer has committed various defects during the course of investigation and the other witnesses of the facts were not examined which were mentioned in the FIR. 13. It is further argued that the Investigating Officer has committed various defects during the course of investigation and the other witnesses of the facts were not examined which were mentioned in the FIR. It is further argued that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at the house of Harish Chandra but none of the inmate of the house was examined as witness, though they were natural witness of the occurrence. It is further argued that the prosecution has not proved whether there was corresponding hole in the cloth which the deceased was wearing at the time of incident. 14. The argument of learned counsel for the State is that it is the quality of the evidence which has to be considered and not the quantity of the witnesses. It is further argued that the purpose of inquest report is very limited, therefore, the inquest has to be interpreted keeping in view the purpose for which it is conducted. It is further argued that the defects of the investigation can not be the sole basis to discard the prosecution story . It is further argued that the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 was wholly reliable and therefore, no illegality was committed by the Trial Court in acting upon the evidence of the witnesses. 15. The first argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the chik report, as provided under Section 157 Cr.P.C. was sent to Magistrate after delay. On this point perusal of the record shows that the chik report of the case Crime No. 17/2000 was signed by the C.J.M. on 3.2.2000 while this chick report as alleged, came into existence on 26.1.2000 at 2.00 a.m. 16. On this point learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Lal and others vs. State of Chattisgarh 2011(9) SCC 561. 17. We have gone through the said judgment, it has no where been held in the aforementioned judgment that mere delay in dispatch of the special report as provided under Section 157 Cr.P.C. can be a sole ground to discard the entire prosecution case. In the fact of the case of Shiv Lal (supra) one Sukh Devi was the sole eye witness being illiterate and rustic village woman, who had no idea of time and distance. In the fact of the case of Shiv Lal (supra) one Sukh Devi was the sole eye witness being illiterate and rustic village woman, who had no idea of time and distance. There were two other witnesses also but one was only author of the FIR and the other alleged witness turned hostile and in that perspective the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate assumed importance. In the said case Hon'ble Apex Court has also held as under: "However, it is not that as if every delay in sending the report to the Magistrate would necessarily lead to the inference that the FIR has not been lodged at the time stated or has been ante-timed or ante-dated or the investigation is not fair and forthright. In a given case, there may be an explanation for delay. An unexplained inordinate delay in sending the copy of the FIR to the Ilaqa Magistrate may affect the prosecution case adversely. However, such an adverse inference may be drawn on the basis of attending circumstances involved in a case." 18. On this point learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh 2011(9) SCC 569 . In that case inspite of the existence of certain rules prevailing in the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation. The importance of 157 Cr.P.C. was not disputed and it was held that the Police Regulation prevailing in the State of Madhya Pradesh does not over-ride Section 157 Cr.P.C. and it can not be said that the police has choice to send the report to the Magistrate. 19. The purpose of sending F.I.R. to the Magistrate is to create certain checks on the actions of the police to ensure that the actions of the police are done at the time as alleged by them. But it is equally true that simply because the FIR was submitted to the Magistrate with delay, the entire prosecution story can not be thrown out. In the case of Abu Thkair and others vs. State represented by Inspector General of Police, Tamilnadu 2010(2) 378, the Apex Court has held that there is no quarrel with the proposition that the importance of requirement of sending document to the courts without any delay. But the delay may occur due to variety of the facts and circumstances. In the case of Abu Thkair and others vs. State represented by Inspector General of Police, Tamilnadu 2010(2) 378, the Apex Court has held that there is no quarrel with the proposition that the importance of requirement of sending document to the courts without any delay. But the delay may occur due to variety of the facts and circumstances. Delay in dispatch of the said document by itself may not be fatal to the prosecution in each and every case. The question as to what is the effect of delay in sending the vital document to the court may have to be assessed and appreciated on the facts and circumstances of the each case. It is not possible to lay down that the delay in dispatch of vital document in each and every case defeats the prosecution case. In another case Dharmveer and others vs. State of U.P. (2010)4 SCC page 469, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere delay in receipt of special report in no way cause doubt on the prosecution case. 20. Therefore, simply on the ground that the F.I.R. reached late to the Magistrate can not be the sole ground to doubt the prosecution version. In U.P. F.I.R. is not sent from the Police Station directly to the Magistrate but its route is through Circle Officer and it may take some time, therefore, the Court has to appreciate the evidence on record in the real prospective keeping in view the ground realities. 21. It is true that in this case the inquest proceedings was taken on 26.1.2000 the crime number of this offence was mentioned in the inquest report Exhibit Ka-7 which has been proved by P.W. 8. It is true that the names of the accused persons were not mentioned and on this point in cross-examination the question was put to P.W. 8, who has stated that there is no such column in inquest proforma whereby it is necessary to mention the names of the accused persons. 22. Law is settled on the point that every document has to be scrutinized and adjudged keeping in view the object of the said document. 22. Law is settled on the point that every document has to be scrutinized and adjudged keeping in view the object of the said document. The object of the inquest proceedings has been explained by this Court in the case of Vimal vs. State of U.P. 2010 (69) ACC page 563 and this Court held as under:- "Thus it is well settled by a catena of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the purpose of holding an inquest is very limited, viz. to ascertain whether a person has committed a suicide or has been killed by another or by a machinery or by an extent or has died under the circumstances raising reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence. There is no requirement of law of mentioning the details of FIR the names of the accused or the names of the eye witness or the gist of their statements nor it is required to be signed by any of the eye witness." 23. Keeping in view the aforementioned legal position the argument of learned counsel for the appellants looses all its bite. The purpose of the inquest report is very limited i.e. to ascertain the apparent cause of death describing the injury as may be found on the body of the deceased. Even if the injuries are not described in details even then it would not be fatal to the prosecution because neither the Investigating Officer nor the eye witness happens to be medical experts. Apart from it, in every document which was prepared along with the inquest report the case crime number is mentioned. The purpose of allotting a Cr. No. is to ascertain and specify the offence which was registered at a particular date, time against the accused persons at a particular police station, therefore, the mentioning of the crime number would be sufficient, keeping in view, the purpose of the inquest report mentioned above. 24. The purpose of allotting a Cr. No. is to ascertain and specify the offence which was registered at a particular date, time against the accused persons at a particular police station, therefore, the mentioning of the crime number would be sufficient, keeping in view, the purpose of the inquest report mentioned above. 24. On facts learned counsel for the appellants has raised several arguments but before proceeding further to deal with the said arguments we find it just to quote certain part of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Shardul Singh vs. State of Haryana 2002 (8) SCC page 372; "There can not be a prosecution case with a cast iron perfection in all respect and it is obligatory for the Court to analyse, sift and assess the evidence on record, with particular reference to its trustworthiness and truthfulness by a process of dispassionate judicial scrutiny adopting an objective and reasonable appreciation of the same without being obsessed by an air of total suspicion of the case of prosecution. What is to be insisted upon is not implicit proof. It has often been said that evidence of interested witnesses should be scrutinized more carefully to find out whether it has a ring of truth and if found acceptable and seems to inspire confidence, too, in the mind of the court, the same can not be discarded totally merely on account of certain variation and infirmities pointed or even additions and embellishments noticed, unless they are of such nature as to undermine the substratum of the evidence and to found to be tainted to the core. Courts have a duty to undertake a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case and the entire evidence with reference to the broad and reasonable probabilities of the case also in their attempt to find out proof beyond reasonable doubt." 25. In the present case the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Shyama Kumar Singh resides in a different village which is more than 20 Kilometers away from the village where occurrence is alleged to have taken place and on this strength alone his argument is that he was not present at scene of occurrence. On this point P.W. 1 has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident he met Biresh Kumar Singh in Shafipur. On this point P.W. 1 has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident he met Biresh Kumar Singh in Shafipur. He has motorcycle with him and thereafter he went with him on his motorcycle to village Udshah. There is Pucca Road up to the village Udshah and where the road ends there is a hospital, Biresh Kumar parked his motorcycle there because from there way to the hospital was muddy. The evidence of this witness is being challenged on the ground that this witness has no motor cycle in his name and I.O. had not gone to the hospital to verify whether the motorcycle was standing there or not. This witness could not tell the number of motorcycle and as to who was the registered owner of the motorcycle. He has stated that he met the deceased at about 1-2 p.m. in Shafipur. He has reached Shafipur just one hour ago and no purchase was made by the deceased in his presence. The evidence of this witness has also been challenged. It has not been mentioned in the FIR that the road from the hospital to his house was muddy. 26. Law is settled on the point that the FIR is not an encyclopedia of the entire prosecution story. The witness has categorically stated that he has gone to Shafipur where he met the deceased, therefore, there is nothing unnatural if he went with the deceased to the village where the deceased was residing because they were closely relative. He is the witness who has lodged the FIR, therefore, simply because in the FIR the number of motorcycle was not mentioned or in the cross- examination he could not give number of the motorcycle or the name of the registered owner of the motorcycle, can not be said to be sufficient ground to discard his testimony. These are such minor things which are not accepted from a man of ordinary prudence to observe and to remember even after a long gap of time. P.W. 1 has fully supported the prosecution story and has stated that when they were going towards their house then they met Bhola Singh, Shankar Singh, Har Sahai and when they reached in front of the house of Bhola Singh the occurrence started and the deceased Viresh in order to save his life ran towards the house of Harish Chandra Dhobi. The accused persons also trespassed into the house of Harish Chandra Dhobi and by firing on him caused his instantaneous death. The postmortem report of the deceased shows that several gun shot injuries were found on his person. 27. Admittedly the deceased was real nephew of the complainant, therefore, if the complainant met him in Shafipur and therefrom he accompanied with the deceased on motorcycle to Udshah then it can not be said to be any unnatural conduct of the complainant. In the FIR it was specifically not mentioned that that way from the hospital to the village was muddy but it was mentioned in the FIR that the motorcycle was parked near the hospital. As stated above, the FIR is not encyclopedia of the entire prosecution story and every omission in the FIR can not be taken to be fatal to the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has satisfactorily explained as to under what circumstances the complainant reached the place of occurrence, therefore, on this ground that he resides at the place which is about 20 kilometer away from the place of incident is not sufficient to discard his otherwise reliable testimony. 28. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that apart from the gun shot injuries there was an abraded contusion measuring in area 6x 6 cm on the right side of the chest and one abraded contusion of 8cm. Below injury no.3 which is the first abraded contusion. One lacerated wound was also found on the right side of chest measuring x cm. Into muscle of right side chest. Because of non explanation of the aforementioned injuries, which were not caused by fire arm, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the incident has taken place in some other manner and none has witnessed it but the existence of contusion on the body of a village person is not such an abnormal thing which may be taken to discard the entire prosecution version in the facts of the present case. In the facts of the present case the deceased fell on the ground and such type of injuries could not have been caused by fall on the ground. Therefore, mere existence of other injuries which are not the result of firearm by the accused persons can not be said to be a ground to discard the otherwise reliable testimony of the prosecution witness. Therefore, mere existence of other injuries which are not the result of firearm by the accused persons can not be said to be a ground to discard the otherwise reliable testimony of the prosecution witness. 29. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that in this case the G.D. Exhibit Ka-3 has been prepared on the plain paper and it has not been prepared on the prescribed proforma but this argument is of no use. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhirendra Kumar 1997 AIR SCW 74; Hon'ble Apex Court has held that judicial notice can be taken of the facts that many a time prescribed registers are not available and so they are kept in non prescribed way. Many a time even a case diary is not kept in prescribed way. 30. In the facts of the present case, G.D. has been prepared on the prescribed proforma, therefore, simply because of G.D. of registration of case has been prepared on the plain paper its genuineness can not be doubted. 31. In the cross-examination of P.W. 1 a long cross-examination was made on the point of enmity between the parties. The plain reading of the said cross- examination makes it clear that there existed enmity between the parties. The enmity is always a double edged weapon it may be a reason for false implication and also a motive for the accused persons to commit the offence. But it can not be believed that a close relative would spare the real assailant and falsely implicate others due to enmity. 32. It is true that in this case occurrence has taken place at about 4.30 p.m. and F.I.R. was lodged after about 9.30 hours. P.W. 1 in his cross-examination has explained the reason of delay and has stated that first the father of the deceased was called and after his arrival the FIR was lodged. This by itself can not be said to be unnatural. Since the father of the deceased was alive at that time, therefore, before lodging the FIR if he was called then it can not be said to be an unnatural fact. Every murder creates a very charged atmosphere. How a person would react in such a charged atmosphere depend on person to person. No straight jacket formula can be laid down that each and every person must react in a particular manner. Every murder creates a very charged atmosphere. How a person would react in such a charged atmosphere depend on person to person. No straight jacket formula can be laid down that each and every person must react in a particular manner. Therefore, in the facts of this case if the complainant considered it necessary to first inform the father of the deceased then it can not be said to be unnatural conduct. 33. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that in cross-examination it has come that there existed a shorter way to the police station and from that way the distance of police station is only 8 kilolmeter, while the complainant went by the longer way. But the perusal of the cross- examination shows that the shorter way was not motor-able and it was an isolated and bad road. Therefore, in the night, if the complainant preferred the pucca road to the police station to reach police station then this conduct is not unnatural. 34. Learned counsel for the appellants has also given much stress on the ground that in this case the natural witnesses were the inmates of the house of Harish Chandra Dhobi but none of them was produced as a witness. It is true that in this case only Bhola Singh of the Village of incident was examined as witness, who has fully supported the prosecution story. It has come in cross-examination that at the time of incident only ladies were present in the house of Harish Chandra Dhobi. Harish Chandra Dhobi himself was a panch in the inquest proceeding. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the case of defence is that the deceased had illicit relation with the wife of Harish Chandra. Therefore, he was murdered at some unknown time in the night but there is no evidence in support of this defence story. The defence has not produced any witness in support of this story. It is only a bald suggestion of the accused persons. On the contrary. It is hard to believe that the complainant would spare the real assailants and implicate innocent persons simply because of the enmity . This defence story also appears to be false because Harish Chandra himself was a witness of the inquest proceedings. It is only a bald suggestion of the accused persons. On the contrary. It is hard to believe that the complainant would spare the real assailants and implicate innocent persons simply because of the enmity . This defence story also appears to be false because Harish Chandra himself was a witness of the inquest proceedings. Had there been any guilty intention in the mind of Harish Chandra, he would have definitely kept himself away from the inquest proceedings or away from the police. 35. It is true that only Bhola Singh was examined as other witness and no other witness was examined and none of the family of Harish Chandra was examined by the prosecution. But the Court can not shut its eyes from the ground realities, because in the present day even in serious offence the parties consider the offence to be a dispute between the parties, like a civil dispute and not a crime against the society and in order to keep themselves away they refrain from coming to Court to give evidence. In the case of Ambika Prasad v. State of Delhi AIR 2000 SC 718 ; the Hon'ble Apex Court on this point has held as under:- "It is known fact that independent persons are reluctant to be a witness or to assist the investigation. Reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, in cases where injured witness or the close relative of the deceased are under constant threat and they dare not depose truth before the Court, independent witness believe that their safety is not guaranteed that belief can not be said to without any substance. Other reasons may be the delay in recording the evidence of independent witnesses and repeated adjournments in Court. In any case, if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, prosecution can not be blamed and it can not be a ground for rejecting the evidence of injured eye witnesses." 36. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court mere non-examination of other witness can not be a ground to discard the prosecution story. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants appears to be misconceived. Because by this argument he pleaded that there should be plurality of the witnesses. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court mere non-examination of other witness can not be a ground to discard the prosecution story. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants appears to be misconceived. Because by this argument he pleaded that there should be plurality of the witnesses. But the Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in S. 134, Evidence Act, which by laying down that "no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact" has enshrined the well recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted." In this case the prosecution having examined three eye witnesses, in our opinion, there was no necessity of multiplying the number of witnesses and no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution merely because the other witnesses mentioned in the FIR were not examined. 37. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that as per the FIR the deceased and complainant while coming from hospital towards their house then Bhola Singh, Shankar Singh, Har Sahai met them on the way but Bhola Singh in his statement has stated that when Viresh and Shyama Kumar Singh reached at his door then they talked with him regarding the way, therefore there is a contradiction but after giving our anxious consideration on this point we are of the view that there is no contradiction it is only the manner of expression of different witnesses. Bhola Singh has also stated that when Viresh reached, they went to him to talk on some matter while Shyama Kumar Singh has stated that these persons met him on the way, therefore, virtually there is no contradiction, it is only the mode of expressing their views by two different persons. In our opinion instead of adversely affecting the prosecution story it rather goes to establish that the prosecution witnesses were not tutored. 38. It is also argued on behalf of the appellants that in the Forensic Lab Report it was not mentioned that there was corresponding hole in the shirt and sweater of the deceased which he was putting on at the time of incident. But the docket, whereby the report of the Forensic Lab was called for, shows that on this point no report of the Forensic Lab was called for. But the docket, whereby the report of the Forensic Lab was called for, shows that on this point no report of the Forensic Lab was called for. This fact was visible through naked eye, therefore, the test report on this point was not warranted. 39. The argument of learned counsel for the defence is that the country made pistol alleged to have been recovered from Jitendra Singh was not tallied by the Forensic Lab and the accused was ultimately acquitted for the said charge. But this by itself can not be a ground to discard the prosecution story because the recovery of the weapon was an additional evidence and not sole evidence. 40. It is also argued on behalf of the appellants that the Investigating Officer has not shown the place where from the witness had seen the occurrence but in the facts of the present case the occurrence had not taken place at one single spot, it started from the house of Babu Singh and ended in the house of Harish Chandra Dhobi. The witnesses went behind the accused persons and the way through which the accused persons chased the deceased and the witnesses went behind them has been specifically shown in the site plan, therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case, it is not important to fix the place where from the witnesses saw the occurrence. 41. It is also argued that the witnesses had not seen as to which of the accused was the author of the murderous assault but in this case there are several gun shot injuries and the specific allegation is that the accused persons fired. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is also that there is no evidence to effect that there was a premeditation of mind, therefore, it can not be said that the occurrence had taken place in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused. There can not be direct evidence to the fact that there was a pre-planning to commit the offence amongst the accused persons, it is to be gathered from the evidence on record and the attending circumstances. It has come in the evidence that all the persons were sitting at the house of Babu Singh with firearm. The country made pistols were preloaded. It has come in the evidence of P.W. Bhola Singh that pistols were not loaded in his presence. It has come in the evidence that all the persons were sitting at the house of Babu Singh with firearm. The country made pistols were preloaded. It has come in the evidence of P.W. Bhola Singh that pistols were not loaded in his presence. All the accused persons chased the deceased Viresh and they all trespassed into the house of Harish Chandra Dhobi and fired at him, therefore, in this background there can not be two opinion regarding the common intention of all these persons. Hence the questions whose fire hit the deceased looses its significance. 42. In the facts of this case the complainant had also named one Narendra Singh that he is person behind this occurrence. Had there been any intention of the complainant to falsely implicate any person then he could have also named Narendra Singh in his FIR as one of the assailant. But it has not been done. It shows that the complainant named only those persons in his FIR who were actually present and who committed the offence. 43. It is also argued that the manner in which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place must have been witnessed by so many persons but not even a single person of the locality has been made a witness nor has been produced by the prosecution. Nowadays it is a common tendency that no outsider would like to get involved in a criminal case that too in the crime of present magnitude and therefore it was quite natural that no independent witness would come forward to assist the prosecution. It is well settled that the evidence of witnesses can not be discarded only on the ground that they are close relative of the deceased persons. All that require in such a situation is that the Court must scrutinize the evidence of such evidence with utmost care and caution. 44. In this case P.W. Bhola Singh is the witness of the same village he has fully corroborated the prosecution version and ahs also stated that all the accused persons were armed with country made pistol and they chased Viresh, who entered into the house of Harish Chandra Dhobi and caused his death by firing on him. In the present days with the social and political changes in the villages the social fabric has undertaken severe changes. In the present days with the social and political changes in the villages the social fabric has undertaken severe changes. The days as it used to be decade back in the village has seized to exist now. The villagers are divided into camps on the basis of castes, creeds, religions and politics and so on. In such a charged atmosphere it is difficult to expect that totally innocent person not having any connection with other party would come to depose in the court of law. The totally innocent person, in fact try to avoid coming in the witness box. They do not want to appear from either side, as it is bound to create sense of enmity with them. So such, few persons keep themselves away from such controversy. This apathy of public is great concern for Courts in administration of criminal justice. 45. In the case of Appa vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1988 SC 696 ; the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this point has expressed similar view and some part of the said judgment is as under:- "Experience remind us that civilized people are generally insensitive when crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilant. They keep themselves away from the court unless inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they must not involve themselves. The kind of apathy of general public is indeed, unfortunate but it is every where, whether in village life town or cities. One can not ignore the handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court therefore instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any suggested by the accused." 46. Therefore, mere non-examination of the other persons who might have seen the occurrence would not adversely affect the otherwise reliable testimony of the witnesses produced by the prosecution. Therefore, mere non-examination of the other persons who might have seen the occurrence would not adversely affect the otherwise reliable testimony of the witnesses produced by the prosecution. It is also argued that as per prosecution story the way from hospital to the village was muddy and when the deceased ran towards the house of Harish Chandra Dhobi then his legs and cloths must have been stained with mud but there is nothing on record to indicate that the body of the deceased was mud stained but this argument of learned counsel for the appellants appears to be misconceived. When a person runs to save his life then he would not run through the mud because in that case he would not be able to run faster, therefore, he will catch the way which is not muddy. 47. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Moti Lal & others vs. State of Rajasthan 2009 AOIL 748; but in the facts of that case the place of occurrence was shifted and therefore, the delay in sending the FIR assumed importance. In that case at the place of occurrence was not shifted. But in the facts of this case admittedly the occurrence has taken place in the house of Harish Chandra Dhobi, the case of defence is also that he was murdered in the house of Harish Chandra Dhobi. Since in this case the place of occurrence is certain, therefore, the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid case law. 48. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Javed Masood vs. State of Rajasthan 2010 AIOL 125; In that case the presence of eye witness was held to be doubtful and on the basis of the case law learned counsel for the appellants has pleaded that the presence of P.W. 1 was doubtful but in this case three is also evidence of P.W. 2, who was resident of same village then why his evidence should be discarded. Evidence of P.W. 2 not only supports prosecution story but also proves the presence of P.W.1. 49. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of U.P Supreme Court, Crl. Evidence of P.W. 2 not only supports prosecution story but also proves the presence of P.W.1. 49. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of U.P Supreme Court, Crl. Appeal No. 1022/2004 decided on 12.12.2008; In that case there was a dispute whether the FIR was lodged at 4.45 a.m. Or 4.45 p.m., the inquest report was not proved and as per the postmortem report the time to his death was 3-4 days while as per the prosecution story the postmortem report was done within 41 hours of the occurrence, therefore, the facts of this case are entirely different. 50. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jugraj vs. State of Punjab 2010 (4) SCR 895; In that case there were three witnesses, one witness did not know the names of the accused persons. The other named the accused on the basis of talks of the accused persons while addressing each other. In that case one Narendra Singh was also present but he was not named in the FIR. Apart from it that was a case of firing but apart from firearm injuries, 5 incised wound were also found on the body of the deceased, for which no explanation was forwarded by the prosecution. Therefore, the facts being different the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of the aforesaid judgment. 51. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Madan Mohan & others 1989 (3) SCC 390 ; In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court on the basis of the non-examination of the other witnesses discarded the evidence of the prosecution witness. They were chance witness and no believable, good ground for their presence was stated by them. In the recent part the criminal jurisprudence had undergone a radical change. Earlier the view was that no innocent person should be punished while hundred guilty may scape, but now view is that no guilty should be punished but leaving guilty unpunished is also not doing justice in accordance with law. 52. In the recent part the criminal jurisprudence had undergone a radical change. Earlier the view was that no innocent person should be punished while hundred guilty may scape, but now view is that no guilty should be punished but leaving guilty unpunished is also not doing justice in accordance with law. 52. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out several defect done by the Investigating Officer during the investigation but mere defective investigation can not be a ground to discard the prosecution story. On this point the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. K. Yarappa Reddy 1999 (8) SCC 715 followed in the case of Abu Thakir v. State of T.N. (2010)5 SCC 91, has held as under:- "Even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise the Crl. Trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. Criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words if the Court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the Court is free to act on it albeit the I.O's suspicious role in the case." 53. In view of the discussion made above, the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellants have no merits. The judgment of learned trial court is in accordance with law and he has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the sentence. There is no illegality in the said judgment, therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The Registry is hereby directed to send the copy of the judgment forthwith to the court concerned to ensure compliance.