Hon'ble Dr. GOMBER, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellants (hereinabove) namely Akram, Aslam and Ashraf, sons of Khairati against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.2.2008 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City, District Karauli in Sessions Case No. 79/2002 (112/2001) whereby accused appellant Akram was convicted for offence under Sections 302, 324/34, 323/34 IPC and also 3/25 Arms Act whereas Aslam for 302 with the aid of 34 IPC, 324 and 323 with the aid of 34 IPC and Ashraf for 302 with the aid of Sec. 34, 324/34 and 323/34 IPC. The learned Trial Judge awarded sentences to them as under : 1. Akram : Under Section 302 IPC : Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment thereof to further under six months' imprisonment. Under Section 324/34 IPC : One year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment thereof to further under two months' imprisonment. Under Section 323/34 IPC : Three month's rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 3/25 Arms Act : One year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment thereof to further under two months' imprisonment. 2. Aslam : Under Section 302/34 IPC : Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment thereof to further under six months' imprisonment. Under Section 324 IPC : One year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment thereof to further under two months' imprisonment. Under Section 323/34 IPC : Three month's rigorous imprisonment. 3. Ashraf : Under Section 302/34 IPC : Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment thereof to further under six months' imprisonment. Under Section 324 IPC : One year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment thereof to further under two months' imprisonment. Under Section 323/34 IPC : Three month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The version of the prosecution was unfolded on the statements (Parcha Bayan Ex.P/3) of PW-3 Hassu @ Hasmuddin an injured eye-witness and son of deceased Babu. 200/-, in default of payment thereof to further under two months' imprisonment. Under Section 323/34 IPC : Three month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The version of the prosecution was unfolded on the statements (Parcha Bayan Ex.P/3) of PW-3 Hassu @ Hasmuddin an injured eye-witness and son of deceased Babu. His Parcha Bayan recorded on 16.7.2001 is to the effect that at about 6-6.30 a.m. when the complainant and his father were sleeping on the roof top (made of Patties known as 'Pattor'), all of sudden their next door neighbours namely Akram, Afzal, Aslam, Ashraf and Arif, laced with a katta, sword and Dharia came to their Pattor and his father Babu was shot on his chest by Akram by his country made pistol. On complainant's inter-vention so as to sve his father, Ashraf, besides inflicting an injury by sword on his father, did inflict one on his head also. Arif and Afzal also inflicted injuries on him as also on his father by sword. His father fell down but being scared of his life, he ran towards Mandi to call his brother Gola @ Shahzad (PW-4). 3. On hearing hue and cry, PW-1 Islam and PW-2 Munna who were passers by, came and witnessed the whole incident and took Babu to the hospital but he succumbed to the injuries on the way. At the time of this occurrence, mother of the complainant and his sister Lallo were on the ground floor of the house. It was further mentioned in the Parcha Bayan that there was a dispute between them on account of a common wall and on the preceding evening, accused persons who are next door neighbours, had threatened them to their lives and that the mother of present appellants had also uttered the words 'we will see you'. 4. On the basis of this Parcha Bayan, case No. 425/2001 was registered at P.S. Hindaun City for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120-B IPC and formal FIR was chalked. 5. 4. On the basis of this Parcha Bayan, case No. 425/2001 was registered at P.S. Hindaun City for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120-B IPC and formal FIR was chalked. 5. During the investigation, Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared panchnama laash, collected blood stained and normal 'Bajri' & 'chuna', blood stained clothes recovered the country made pistol at the instance of accused Akram whereas two swords were recovered at the instance of Aslam and Ashraf and got the post-mortem of deceased conducted and obtained post-mortem report of deceased and medical reports of injured person Armoury Report with regard to pistol. After completion of investigation, a complete charge-sheet against the present three appellants, along with others, namely Arif and Afzal @ Ashiq was filed for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 302 IPC; against Mst. Raffko (mother of accused) was filed for offence under Section 120-B IPC whereas as against Afzal @ Ashiq, charge-sheet was filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C. 6. Arif (not before us) being juvenile, his case was sent for trial to the Juvenile Justice Board. Therefore, by way of impugned judgment, learned Trial Court decided the case against the present three appellants as also against Mst. Raffko who was acquitted of the charges leveled against her. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the charge arguments, read over the charges to the accused persons. Accused Akram was charged with offence under Sections 148, 323/149, 302, 324/149 IPC as also 3/25 Arms Act; Aslam for offence under Sections 148, 323/149, 302/149 and 324 IPC; whereas Ashraf with offence under Sections 323/149, 324/149, 302/149 and 148 IPC. Accused Raffko is not before us (since acquitted) and no appeal by the State Government, hence no discussion with regard to Mst. Raffko is required. 8. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. 9. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and all incriminating evidence and material was put to them. They alleged false implication. 10. The explanation given by the accused was that on the date of incident, the complainant party had thrown waste of their cattle in their house which was thrown back by the accused party. They alleged false implication. 10. The explanation given by the accused was that on the date of incident, the complainant party had thrown waste of their cattle in their house which was thrown back by the accused party. On this, the deceased and complainant Hassu got annoyed and laced with swords attacked them and while trying to save themselves scuffle took place and it was during that scuffle that Hassu and Babu received sharp injuries. So far as gun shot injury on the chest of deceased was concerned, their explanation was that some one from the street shot Babu and that they did not know as to who he was. 11. However, accused did not lead any defence, though the witnesses PW-1, PW-3 & PW-4 were confronted with their previous statements made to police and marked as Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/5. 12. The learned trial Court, after considering the material before it, recorded the finding of conviction of the appellants and awarded sentence as mentioned hereinbefore. Hence, this appeal. 13. Assailing the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court, various submissions were advanced by the learned counsel for appellants which will be dealt after discussing the evidence of important witnesses, the trial Court has relied on so as to arrive at the finding of conviction. 14. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Sate, supported the impugned judgment and argued that there was sufficient material against the accused to arrive at a conclusion as arrived by the learned trial Court. 15. PW-17 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, who was one of the Board Members who conducted post-mortem and prepared the report Ex.P/22, found following external injuries on the person of deceased Babu : (i) Incised would of 4.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on upper part of left side of chest-just below the neck on sternoclavicular joint region. Clotted blood deposited. (ii) Superficial linear cut of 16 cm in length of upper half of the left side of chest, obliquely. (iii) Deep abrasion of 1 cm x 0.5 cm on left side of chin. (iv) Superficial linear cut of 2 cm in length on left arm middle part-laterally. (v) A punctured wound of 3.0 cm x 2.5 cm x depth internal viscera, on right side of chest, 7 cm below and oblique from right nipple, Inverted, with lacerated irregular, contused margins, oval in shape. (iv) Superficial linear cut of 2 cm in length on left arm middle part-laterally. (v) A punctured wound of 3.0 cm x 2.5 cm x depth internal viscera, on right side of chest, 7 cm below and oblique from right nipple, Inverted, with lacerated irregular, contused margins, oval in shape. Direction of the wound obliquely and postero medially. 16. On examination, following internal injuries were found: "Surrounding the above described wound, there are multiple sieve like punctured wounds of varying size measuring from 0.3 cm to 0.5 cm in diameter, in an area of 15.5 cm x 13.5 cm on right side of chest. The margins of wounds are everted and confused. All surrounding wounds were not upto the whole depth of skin. No scroaching, blackening or tatuooing present on the skin around the wounds. No exit would present on his body. Above injuries are suggestive of entry wounds of fire arm. Corresponding holes are present on the Baniyan, which he is putting or wearing on. Clotted blood present on wounds and clothes are blood soaked. All injuries are ante mortem in nature." 17. In the opinion of the board, the cause of death of deceased Babu was shock due to massive internal haemorrhage from the wounds of both the lungs and heart and due to pallets of some fire arm. 18. During his cross-examination, he opined that in the given situation, gun shot was fired from the right side and not from front and that the victim and deceased were not on the same surface. 19. PW-19 Dr. Ramlal Meena who examined injured Hassu at the request of Hindaun Police, has found following injuries on his person : (i) Incised wound of 4 cm x .5 cm xbone deep on left fronto parietal region of head, bleeding + margin clear cut. (ii) Superficial linear cut of 4 cm in length on lower 1/3 part of right fore arm posteriorly. (iii) Swelling of 5 cm x 3 cm on left parietal region of head below and posterior to injury No.1. Advise to X-ray of skull A.P. and lateral view. X-ray was advised. However no fracture was found. Injury No.2 was opined as simple and blunt whereas injury No.1 and 3 were simple caused by sharp weapon. He has proved injury report Ex.P/24 and X-ray report Ex.P/25. 20. Advise to X-ray of skull A.P. and lateral view. X-ray was advised. However no fracture was found. Injury No.2 was opined as simple and blunt whereas injury No.1 and 3 were simple caused by sharp weapon. He has proved injury report Ex.P/24 and X-ray report Ex.P/25. 20. After discussing the medico legal evidence, we propose to now discuss the ocular evidence in little detail. 21. PW-3 Hassu alias Hasmuddin, who is the son of deceased Babu and who was sleeping along with his father on the Pattor (roof top of the house made of slabs) at the time of occurrence and who was also injured in the incident, is the most important witness. In his statements before the Court, he had categorically stated that it was at about 6/6.30 a.m. on the date of occurrence that he and his father Babu were sleeping on he floor at Pattor and the accused persons Akram, Aslam, Ashraf and also Arif and Asif (not before us), who are next door neighbours and whose pattor is adjacent, came to their pattor abusing them. 22. Akram was laced with deshi katta, whereas Aslam and Ashraf had swords and others were having sword and dharia. According to him, seeing them he and his father got up and as soon as his father got up, Akram fired at gunshot which injured his chest as a result whereof he fell down. 23. After his fall, Aslam inflicted a sword injury which hurt his 'hasli', whereafter Ashraf also inflicted a sword blow on his father's chest, and when he tried to intervene and save his father, Aslam inflicted a sword injury on his head whereas Ashraf also inflicted one on his head from the blunt side of Dharia and Arif injured his hand by sword. 24. According to him, the incident was witnessed by Munna, Islam and also by his mother and sister who were on the ground floor. Being scared of the accused, he jumped from the pattor and went to the mandi to call his other brother. By the time he came back, Munna and Islam had already taken his father Babu to the hospital. He also reached the hospital where he was admitted and after about an hour the police also reached there. His Parcha Bayan Ex.P/3 was recorded in the present of doctor. 25. By the time he came back, Munna and Islam had already taken his father Babu to the hospital. He also reached the hospital where he was admitted and after about an hour the police also reached there. His Parcha Bayan Ex.P/3 was recorded in the present of doctor. 25. He further stated that Akram had inflicted the gunshot injury on Babu from a distance of 2-3 arms "do teen haath ki doori se" and that the accused persons had jumped their pattor. He reiterated that 2-3 days prior to the incident there was some altercation between the parties on the issue of a common wall and that on the preceding evening also the accused had threatened them. 26. During his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that there was any dispute on throwing of cattle waste on that day. He reiterated that he and his father woke up only when the accused came to pattor and that the distance between him and his father was about 5 feet at the time when the incident took place and the accused and his father were on the same pattor. 27. He explained in his cross-examination that he jumped and went to call his other brother because he was scared of his life as the accused were laced with weapons. Further he stated that the police recorded his statements while he was in the hospital. In answer to the suggestion he stated that he did not know as to how did the police reach the hospital and that he also did not see his father in the hospital because he was himself injured and admitted. His statements were recorded in the presence of the doctor in the ward itself. According to him, the site plan was prepared on the same day. He is also a witness to Ex.P/1, the site plan. 28. Thus, he was put to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be elicited which could adversely affect the prosecution case or could fortify the defence version. The suggestion given by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the throwing of cattle waste in their house and throwing back by them, was denied by him. He also denied that somebody from the lane had fired the gunshot injury on his father. 29. The suggestion given by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the throwing of cattle waste in their house and throwing back by them, was denied by him. He also denied that somebody from the lane had fired the gunshot injury on his father. 29. The next important witness, who is also an eye witness is PW-1 Islam, who stated before the Court that after the morning namaz, he and Munna PW-4 were going for their work towards Khareta village and the moment they reached near Babu's house, they heard hue and cry and saw that Akram, Aslam, Ashraf, Arif and Asif jumping from their pattor to the pattor of Babu's house where he was sleeping. They went to save the deceased and saw accused Akram firing a gunshot injury which injured Babu on chest and he fell down. 30. After falling of Babu, Aslam inflicted a sword injury on his 'hasli' and second sword injury was inflicted by Ashraf on his chest. Hassu, the son of deceased, also had been inflicted injury on his head with a sword by Aslam. Ashraf gave a blow on his head from the blunt side of a Dharia. 31. Hassu jumped from the pattor so as to call his brother from mandi and thereafter he and Munna PW-4 took Babu on a 'thela' to the hospital who succumbed to injuries on way to the hospital. Thereafter, according to him, they attended the funeral at about 12.00 noon and the police came for inspection of the site on the same day at about 3/3.30 p.m. 32. During his cross-examination he explained as to why they used to go to khareta village from that route saying that this route was straight and the transport for khareta village was easily available there. 33. He also faced a lengthy cross-examination. However, nothing could be extracted to demolish the prosecution case. He has also explained that the accused were at a distance of 2-3 'haath' from the victim Babu, who was unarmed and the gunshot was fired from the front. All the accused, according to him, were in front of Babu and none was on the right or left side. He explained that deceased Babu tried to run but Akram immediately fired the gun. All the accused, according to him, were in front of Babu and none was on the right or left side. He explained that deceased Babu tried to run but Akram immediately fired the gun. Hassu was also at a distance of 2-3 feet and Babu, on account of sustaining injury of gunshot, fell on the floor and his clothes were soaked in the blood. 34. According to him, Babu feel 2-3 feet away from the bed-sheet on which he was sleeping. He also stated that there was no altercation in the morning and immediately after jumping the pattor Akram fired the gun. He came to know later that there had been some altercation between the parties 2-4 days prior to the incident and further that Babu breathed last on way to the hospital. 35. he had explained that the incident of preceding day came to his knowledge only after recording of his statements before the police and, therefore, he did not mention this fact in his police statement. He also denied the suggestion that the incident did not occur on the pattor of the complainant. 36. Strangely, no question, with regard to the defence version that the complainant party had assaulted the accused in their house laced with weapons and that the dispute arose on account of throwing of cattle waste by the complainant party and re-throwing the same by the accused, was put to him. No such suggestion was put either to this witness or to PW2 Munna, who is also stated to be an eye witness and who was examined on the same day. 37. PW-2 Munna, although hostile, who reached the hospital immediately after the incident, has also admitted having seen the dead body of Babu in the hospital. According to him, besides, a gun shot injury on his chest, there were marks of other injuries also on his body and that the wound was bleeding. 38. PW-4 Gola @ Shahzad, though not an eye witness, is the other son of deceased who reached the hospital on information and who has deposed about the enmity between the parties on account of common wall. 39. 38. PW-4 Gola @ Shahzad, though not an eye witness, is the other son of deceased who reached the hospital on information and who has deposed about the enmity between the parties on account of common wall. 39. Besides the above discussed eye witnesses' account and medical evidence with regard to the injuries on the person of deceased Babu, and Hassu other link and incriminating circumstances are recovery of 'desi katta' at the instance of Akram vide Ex.P/13, two swords vide Ex.P/11 & 12 (one each at the instance of Aslam and Ashraf), blood stained torn vest, with burns and 40 holes of pellets, worn by the victim at the relevant time vide Ex.9, blood stained and plain bajri, chuna etc. vide Ex.P/8 collected from the place of occurrence and proved by the Investigating Officer PW-21 Kailash Bhagwati. Besides there is also recovery of 40 pallets and a plastic cartridge found in the body of deceased by the doctor conducting post-mortem. 40. According to PW-20 Kulraj Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police Station Hindaun City, on receipt of telephonic information about some fighting with the use of swords in Kachhwaha pada, when he was about to start for the said area, he received another call that fire arm was used and the injured was taken to the hospital. On reaching the hospital he saw Hassu in injured condition lying on the hospital bed. He gave a requisition to the doctor for knowing the condition of the injured for recording the statement and obtained the same. Parcha Bayan of Hassu was noted and his medical examination was got done. Post mortem of deceased Babu had also been got conducted on his requisition. 41. From the foregoing discussion and the material on record, the circumstances that have emerged are that, admittedly, there appears to have been some ill-will between the parties with regard to the breaking and reconstruction of a common wall 2-3 days prior to the incident. According to the complainant party, reconstruction thereof was being opposed by accused appellants who threatened them with dire consequences on the preceding evening and on the next very morning accused persons, laced with 'desi katta' swords etc., assaulted the deceased and his son while they were sleeping on their pattor and caused injuries leading to the death of deceased Babu and simple blunt and sharp injuries on the person of Hassu. In this regard the evidence of PW-1 Islam, PW-3 Hassu and PW-4 Gola @ Shahzad has been consistent from the very beginning even in their statements before police. 42. As against this, the explanation given by the accused is not fortified for the reason that they, firstly did not lead any evidence in support of their side of the story given in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, secondly, none of the accused sustained any sharp edged or other injury, nor did they lodge any report. If the defence version was true, then the accused ere bound to have some injuries on their person, which is not the case here. Therefore, the defence version, in the light of ocular, documentary, link and other evidence produced by the prosecution, does not inspire confidence and the learned trial Court, in our considered view, has rightly rejected the same. 43. The appellants Aslam and Ashraf have also been held guilty for the offence of committing murder of Babu and for the injuries of Akram with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 34 does not create a substantive offence. It means that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them has done it intentionally. The constructive liability under this section would arise if following two conditions are fulfilled: (a) there must be common intention to commit a criminal act; and (b) there must be participation of all the persons in doing of such act in furtherance of that intention. Common intention requires a prior concert or pre-planning. Common intention to commit a crime should be anterior in point of time to the commission of the crime, but may also develop at the instant when such crime is committed. 44. It is difficult, if not impossible, to procure direct evidence of common intention. In most cases it has to be inferred from the act or conduct of the accused persons and other relevant circumstances of the case. This inference can be gathered by the manner in which the accused arrived on the scene and mounted the attack, the determination with which the injury was inflicted, the concerted conduct of the accused persons during the commission of the offence of the accused persons and subsequent thereto also. This inference can be gathered by the manner in which the accused arrived on the scene and mounted the attack, the determination with which the injury was inflicted, the concerted conduct of the accused persons during the commission of the offence of the accused persons and subsequent thereto also. In other words intention has to be gathered from the acts of the accused persons and the attendant relevant circumstances enwombing the act. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at a conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with which he could be convicted. 45. In the decision reported as Suresh vs. State of U.P. (2001) 3 SCC 673 , the Supreme Court observed :- "23. Thus to attract Section 34 IPC two postulates are indispensable: (1) The criminal act (consisting of a series of acts) should have been done, not by one person, but more than one person. (2) Doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting in the commission of criminal offence should have been in furtherance of the common intention of all such persons. 24. Looking at the first postulate pointed out above, the accused, who is to be fastened with liability on the strength of Section 34 IPC, should have done some act which has nexus with the offence. Such an act need not be very substantial, it is enough that the ct is only for guarding the scene for facilitating the crime. The act need not necessarily be overt, even if it is only a convert act it is enough, provided such a covert act is proved to have been done by the co-accused in furtherance of the common intention. Even an omission can, in certain circumstances, amount to an act. This is the purport of Section 32 IPC. So the act mentioned in Section 34 IPC need not be an overt act, even an illegal omission to do a certain act in a certain situation can amount to an act, e.g. A co-accused, standing near the victim face to face saw an armed assailant nearing the victim from behind with a weapon to inflict a blow. The co-accused, who could have alerted the victim to move away to escape from the onslaught deliberately refrained from doing so with the idea that the blow should fall on the victim. The co-accused, who could have alerted the victim to move away to escape from the onslaught deliberately refrained from doing so with the idea that the blow should fall on the victim. Such omission can also be termed as an act in a given situation. Hence an act, whether overt or covert, is indispensable to be done by a co-accused to be fastened with the liability under the section. But if no such act is done by a person, even if he has common intention with the others for the accomplishment of the crime, Section 34 IPC cannot be invoked for convicting that person. In other words, the accused who only keeps the common intention in his mind, but does not do any act at the scene, cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC. 25. There may be other provisions in the IPC like Section 120-B or Section 109 which could then be invoked to catch such non-participating accused. Thus participation in the crime in furtherance of the common intention is a sine qua non for Section 34 IPC...." 46. The question which needs consideration is that whether appellants Aslam and Ashraf can be attributed with the intention of murdering the deceased and vice versa and Akram for voluntarily causing simple sharp and blunt injuries on the persons of Babu and Hassu. 47. On reappreciation of evidence, we also conclude that the doctor has proved the injury report as Ex.P/24 and X-ray report as Ex.P/25. PW-3 Hassu and PW-1 Islam have corroborated the prosecution version stating that Babu and Hassu were sleeping on the top of the Pattor and accused-appellants laced with katta and swords came there. As soon as Babu opened his eyes, Akram shot him by his katta and Aslam and Ashraf inflicted sharp and blunt injuries to him and also to Hasu, and the incident took place on account of their enmity on the issue of all and because of the threatening given by the accused on the preceding evening that the accused laced with katta and swords came to complainant's pattor in furtherance of their common intention. 48. Five injuries on the person of Babu including the fatal injury (No.5) as noted in the post-mortem report (Ex.P/22 and injuries on the person of Hassu as noted in Ex.P/24 were found. 49. 48. Five injuries on the person of Babu including the fatal injury (No.5) as noted in the post-mortem report (Ex.P/22 and injuries on the person of Hassu as noted in Ex.P/24 were found. 49. A perusal of statements of PW-1 and PW-3 shows that there is no manner of doubt that the accused-appellants had in furtherance of common intention of all, committed the murder of Babu and voluntarily caused injuries on the person of Hassu. Therefore, Section 34 is attracted in the present case and the accused-appellants were rightly convicted with its aid. 50. Now we propose to deal with the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. 51. The first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appe-llants was that the FIR was delayed and that there was non-compliance of Sec.157 of 'the Code' of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short 'the Code'). 52. The answer to the question, whether the FIR in a given case has been lodged belatedly or not, is always a question of fact and has to be answered bearing in mind the facts of the case in question and also the explanation furnished by the prosecution in case there is some delay in its lodging. There can be no mathematical computation of the time taken in the lodging of the FIR. What the court has to examine is whether the delay in inordinate and whether any cogent explanation is forthcoming. In case it is so, some delay in the lodging of the FIR is only natural and would not detract from the value to be attached to it. A little delay is sometime bound to be there (See State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh Nivrath Bhurare (1997) 2 Crime 228 (Bom). 53. Commenting on the object, value and use of First Information Report, in the decision reported as Sheikh Hasib @ Tabarak vs. The State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 283 , a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court had observed as under : "The principal object of the first information report from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party. The first information report, we may point out, does not constitute substantive evidence though its importance as conveying the earliest information regarding the occurrence cannot be doubted. It can, however, only be used as a previous statement for the purpose of either corroborating its maker under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act or for contradicting him under Section 145 of that Act. It cannot be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting other witnesses." 54. Apart from the fact that lodging of information under Section 154 Cr.P.C. keeps the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police informed of the occurrence and when recorded, is the basis of the case set up by the informant and provides material to the police to commence investigation, its fundamental object is that it acts as a safeguard against embellishment, exaggeration and forgetfulness. 55. Section 157 of 'the Code' casts a duty upon the I.O. to forthwith send the report of the cognizable offence to the concerned Magistrate. The purpose of forthwith sending the report is to keep the concerned Magistrate informed of the investigation so that he may be able to control the investigation and if required to issue appropriate directions. Mere delay in dispatch of the FOR, by itself, is no ground to throw away the prosecution case in its entirety. Sending the report to the Magistrate belatedly is a circumstance which provides a basis to raise suspicion that the FIR is the result of consultation and deliberations and it was recorded much later than the date and time mentioned in it, and discloses that the investigation is not fair and forth right; See Swati Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) 2 Crimes (Raj.) 148. 56. In this back ground if the facts of case in hand are seen it can be concluded that there was no delay in lodging the FIR in the facts and circumstances of the case. As has been discussed in preceding paras while discussing the evidence of PW-20 and PW-3, it is clear that on receipt of a cryptic telephonic information without any details and then getting second call about injured being taken to the hospital, PW-20 reached the hospital at 7-7.15 a.m. and saw Hassu injured lying on the hospital bed. As has been discussed in preceding paras while discussing the evidence of PW-20 and PW-3, it is clear that on receipt of a cryptic telephonic information without any details and then getting second call about injured being taken to the hospital, PW-20 reached the hospital at 7-7.15 a.m. and saw Hassu injured lying on the hospital bed. he, after getting certificate about his condition from the doctor, recorded the Parcha Bayan and also got the medical examination conducted besides getting post-mortem of deceased Babu. 57. Much emphasis was laid on the time shown at the bottom of Ex.P/3 and it was argued that Ex.P/3 Parcha bayan was post investigative. In this regard suffice it to say that the Apex Court in AIR 1981 SC 1230 - Sebi vs. T.N. State held that if the police reaches the hospital on telephonic information and the written report is given there, it cannot be said to be post investigative. 58. Coordinate Bench of this Court also, in 1979 Cr.L.J. (Raj.) 500 - Sultan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, where the injured was first taken to the hospital and the case was registered on the basis of his statements recorded thereafter, held that it was not hit by Sec. 162 Cr.P.C. 59. It is also important to note that no such question was put to PW-20 that Ex.P/3 was post investigative. Just because the time at the bottom of the report was mentioned as 10.20 a.m. it cannot be doubted. In the given circumstances, for an incident occurring at 6.30 a.m., it cannot be said to be delayed. This fact also cannot be ignored that Hassu complainant was himself injured and his father had died in the incident. He is bound to be in a shock. The deceased and injured reached hospital within no time and police reached on a cryptic telephonic information and in the given circumstances the delay if any gets sufficiently explained. 60. Thus there was hardly any time for the complainant party to cook any false story to implicate the accused after deliberations. The report is proved to have been sent at 3.00 p.m. on the same day to the Magistrate. 61. 60. Thus there was hardly any time for the complainant party to cook any false story to implicate the accused after deliberations. The report is proved to have been sent at 3.00 p.m. on the same day to the Magistrate. 61. It is a settled law that a mere receiving of information on phone by a police officer without any details as regards the identity of the accused or the nature of injuries caused by the victims as well as the name of the culprits may not be treated as FIR : (Ravishwar Manghi vs. State of Jharkhand AIR 2009 SC 1262 ). 62. In view of discussion made hereinabove, this submission of appellants' counsel has no force and is hereby rejected. 63. The second submission of appellants' counsel was with regard to the unnatural conduct of PW-3 Hassu and PW-1 Islam and being planted witness. It was contended that in view of his unnatural conduct, PW-3 Hassu cannot be said to be an eye witness and that the prosecution has cooked up the story by also planting him as eye witness to falsely implicate the appellants. 64. Since this submission advanced by the learned counsel was predicated upon the conduct of Hassu PW-3, in this regard, we note the decision of Supreme Court reported as State of Karnataka vs. Yellappa Reddy AIR 2000 SC 185 where it was held that unless the reaction demonstrated by an eye-witness is so improbable or so inconceivable from any human being pitted in such a situation it is unfair to doubt his reaction as unnatural. 65. In the back drop of aforenoted dictum, it needs to be judged whether the conduct of PW-3 Hassu, of jumping from the Pattor so as to go to and call his other brother from Mandi and not attending to the injured father, to save the deceased from the appellants, was unnatural or not. 66. In the instant case, PW-3 Hassu has categorically stated that the appellants were armed weapons at the time of the incident and when he intervened, he was also inflicted injuries by sword which made him scared of his life also, therefore, he jumped from the Pattor to call his brother Gola from Mandi. 67. 66. In the instant case, PW-3 Hassu has categorically stated that the appellants were armed weapons at the time of the incident and when he intervened, he was also inflicted injuries by sword which made him scared of his life also, therefore, he jumped from the Pattor to call his brother Gola from Mandi. 67. In such circumstances, can the conduct of PW-3 Hassu of not attempting to save the deceased from the clutches of the appellants who were armed with weapons, particularly when he was unarmed, and had seen that the appellants caused hurt to him by sword when he tried to stop them from attacking the deceased, be termed as so inconceivable from the conduct of any human being pitted in such a situation. The answer to the said question is an emphatic 'NO'. 68. PW-3 Hassu, besides being the son of deceased and an eye-witness, he was also injured and it is settled law that the testimony of an injured witness is entitled to greater weight because his presence at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted. Moreover in the instant case no such question was put to PW-3 Hassu suggesting that he was not sleeping on Pattor at the relevant time. 69. It is unlikely that an injured would spare the real assailant and implicate an innocent person; unless there are cogent and convincing grounds and in the absence of any material infirmity to discard his evidence, his testimony cannot be repelled. 70. As discussed in preceding paras and at the cost of repetition, it can be stated that version of PW-3 Hassu inspires confidence. Presence of PW-3 Hassu is natural and established at the spot because it was early hour of the morning and as is common in smaller towns the male folk of the family sleeps during summer months, on the roof top or 'pattor' whatever one may call. He is the son of the deceased sleeping along with him at 6-6.30 a.m. and was also an injured. 71. As discussed above, PW-1 Islam an eye witness, is the one who had seen the incident and who, along with Munna PW-2 (though hostile), has supported the prosecution to that extent that they took the deceased in a thela to the hospital and that he succumbed to injuries on way to the hospital. 71. As discussed above, PW-1 Islam an eye witness, is the one who had seen the incident and who, along with Munna PW-2 (though hostile), has supported the prosecution to that extent that they took the deceased in a thela to the hospital and that he succumbed to injuries on way to the hospital. He was put to lengthy cross-examination but his statements in chief could not be shattered in any manner. He has deposed on the same lines as Hassu PW-3 and has corroborated his version. 72. Minor discrepancies and contradictions pointed out by the learned defence counsel, not touching the core of the case and in view of the fact that the witnesses are not expected to possess a photographic memory, as well as the power of observation differing from person to person, has to be kept in mind. On scrutiny of the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, it is established that their versions are clear, cogent and inspire confidence. Accordingly this question is answered in positive that PW-1 and PW-3 are eye witnesses. 73. From the version of the eye-witnesses it is clear that with the gun shot injury in the chest inflicted by Akram, the injured Babu fell down at the spot and thereafter he was inflicted injuries by sword also and it was for this reason that the blood stained bazri chuna was found at the spot and the vest which he was wearing had 40 sieves being soaked in blood. Thus the second submission advanced on behalf of appellants is also not sustained. 74. With regard to the third submission that there were contradictions, improvements and embellishment, it was contended that the statements of two eye witnesses suffer from discrepancies with regard to the distance from where the gun was shot and this fact was material in this case because of medical opinion. 75. In dealing with the discrepancy, relating to the distance from where the gun was shot by Akram, in the evidence of PW-1 Islam and PW-3 Hassu, it is most significant to note that they both are illiterate persons. 75. In dealing with the discrepancy, relating to the distance from where the gun was shot by Akram, in the evidence of PW-1 Islam and PW-3 Hassu, it is most significant to note that they both are illiterate persons. When scanning the evidence of various witnesses, the Court has to take care of the fact that variances on the fringes, discrepancies in details, contradictions in narrations and embellishment in unessential parts cannot militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony, provided there is the impress of truth and conformity to probability in the substantial fabric of testimony delivered. Even a wholly truthful witness is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and piercing cross-examination by counsel out of nervousness and mix up the facts. Be that, as it may, minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case do not permit rejection of the whole evidence given by a witness. 76. As regards medical opinion given by PW-17 with regard to the distance from where the gunshot injury was inflicted and the level of the victim and deceased, it is being discussed later. 77. Fourth submission advance by the learned counsel for the appellants was predicated to the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stating that all incriminating material was not put to them. Simply asking the question as to what do the accused have to say was not enough and that the explanation given by the accused was not considered by the learned trial Judge. 78. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons had pleaded innocence and stated that on their re-throwing the cattle waste back to the complainant house, Hassu came to their house laced with sword and Babu started abusing from his pattor. Thereafter, during the scuffle Babu and Hassu sustained injuries while trying to snatch the sword, so as to save themselves. Further that somebody from the lane had fired gunshot on Babu. 79. Thereafter, during the scuffle Babu and Hassu sustained injuries while trying to snatch the sword, so as to save themselves. Further that somebody from the lane had fired gunshot on Babu. 79. It is relevant to state that none of the eye-witnesses i.e. PW-1 Islam and PW-2 Munna (though hostile) were given any suggestion by the learned defence counsel that they were deposing falsely and that the incident occurred not in the manner claimed by the prosecution but as explained by the accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However the defence version for the first time, was put to PW-3 Hassu whose statements were recorded six months after the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 and as such this appears to be an after though on a better legal advice. 80. The eye witnesses have given clear and cogent versions; the picture has been depicted clearly; the incident had occurred at 6.30 a.m. and deceased was immediately taken to the hospital. The injured PW-3 Hassu's parcha bayan was recorded and the case was registered. It was received by the Magistrate at 3.00 p.m. and the post-mortem was conducted within 4 hours of the incident. The time gap between the incident and the dispatch of FIR is fairly minimal keeping in view the intervening happenings. The accused Raffko was arrested the same day however the other accused could not be arrested for about a month plus as they disappeared after the incident. 81. Testimonies of eye witnesses inspire confidence and there is no reason why they should be disbelieved. The eye witness PW-1 Islam along with the help of Munna PW-2 (though hostile), had removed the injured to the hospital and this has been corroborated by both PW-1 and PW-3. PW-2 Munna although deposed at variance from his previous statements but that does not in any manner dent the version of the prosecution. 82. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the accused with regard to the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is also not sustainable because the sum and substance of entire evidence including the firing of gunshot by Akram was put to them. 83. There is no doubt to the proposition that scope of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality and there is a purpose behind the examination under the said provisions of law. 83. There is no doubt to the proposition that scope of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality and there is a purpose behind the examination under the said provisions of law. It is, however, to be kept in mind that what is the effect of not putting a particular incriminating circumstance to the accused; does it lead to a prejudice and a subsequent denial of justice, if not, the accused is not permitted to take the benefit of the same. Mere non-examination or a defective examination under Section 342 of the Cr.P.C. 1898 (Section 313 of the New Code) unless prejudice or miscarriage of justice is established is not a ground for interference. See Vibhuti Bhushan vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1969 SC 381 . 84. Fifth submission was with regard to lacunae left by the Investigating Officer and the benefit thereof to be given to the accused. 85. In the case in hand, the investigating officer has not sent the pallets; the plastic cartridge found in the body of deceased and 'desi katta' recovered at the instance of accused Akram to the ballistic expert. In this regard the law is well settled. 86. In the case of Amar Singh vs. Balvinder Singh and Others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 518 = RLW 1995(2) SC 135 which was a case of murder by gun shot firing and where the Investigating Officer failed to send the fire arm and the empties recovered from the spot to Forensic Science Laboratory and failure to take into possession wire-guaze of the window of the baithak from where the gun shot was fired, it was held that when the prosecution case is fully established from the testimony of the eye-witnesses, the negligence of I.O. cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. The Apex Court held that in cases of defective investigation, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect. 87. It was observed in para 15 of the judgment in Amar Singh's case (supra) that it would have been certainly better if the investigating agency had sent the firearms and the empties to the FSL for comparison. However, the report of the ballistic expert, would, in any case be in the nature of an expert opinion and the same is not conclusive. However, the report of the ballistic expert, would, in any case be in the nature of an expert opinion and the same is not conclusive. The failure of the I.O. in sending the firearms and empties for comparison cannot completely throw out the prosecution case when the same is fully established from the testimony of eye-witnesses whose presence on the spot cannot be doubted as the gunshot injuries were recovered by them in the incident. 88. Thus it is clear that where the prosecution case is fully established by the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses, the investigation, even if tainted, cannot render the prosecution case doubtful. 89. Likewise, in Ram Behari Yadav vs. State of Bihar and others (1998) 4 SCC 517 , it was held by Apex Court in para 13 as under : "Though the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused in the manner stated by it and that any act or omission, on the part of the prosecution giving rise to any reasonable doubt, would go in favour of the accused. Yet in a case like the present one, where the record shows that investigating officers created a mess by bringing on record dying declaration and GD Entry and have exhibited remiss and/or deliberately omitted to do what they ought to have done to bail out the appellant, who was a member of the police force, or for any extraneous reasons, the interest of justice demands that such an omission of the officers of the prosecution, should not be taken in favour of the accused, for that would amount to giving premium for the wrongs of the prosecution designedly committed to favour the appellants. In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined dehors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice." 90. If the case in hand is looked in the light of principle of law laid down by Apex Court, in Ram Behari Yadav's case (supra) it is clear that the investigation conducted by the I.O. clearly suggests that it has designedly not been conducted properly. If the case in hand is looked in the light of principle of law laid down by Apex Court, in Ram Behari Yadav's case (supra) it is clear that the investigation conducted by the I.O. clearly suggests that it has designedly not been conducted properly. Learned trial Court, in its impugned judgment, has discussed about the manner the I.O. has tried to help the accused. The observation of the learned trial Judge that the I.O. PW-20 has appeared in the witness box also for his business speaks million about him. The ocular evidence coupled with promptness in initiation of the case along with link evidence available at the place of occurrence, is in itself capable of proving the prosecution case. 91. In the case of Dhanraj Singh @ Shera and Ors. vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2004 SC p. 1920, also the Apex Court held that to acquit the accused solely on account of defective investigation would tantamount to playing into hands of investigating officer, if investigation is designedly defective. 92. In another case titled as Karnel Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in (1995) 5 SCC 518 , it was held that the defective investigation by the police cannot be a ground for acquitting the accused. In this case, it was also held that mere delay in lodging FIR does not raise the inference that the complaint was false. 93. However, in the case in hand, Ex.P/17 Armoury report had been obtained wherein the katta was found serviceable having about 12" bore locally made and falling within the purview of 'firearm'. 94. A firearm is a generic term for various weapons throwing a missile by the propelling power generator by a charge of explosives which includes rifles and pistols (Deshi Katta). 95. PW-17 Dr. Sharma had deposed that the fatal injury i.e. injury No.5 had been caused by a firearm. We note that the description of katta given in Ex.P/17, the katta is found as 12" bore. In view of above the appellants cannot take the benefit of the lacunae left by the Investigation Officer and this submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants also has no force. 96. We note that the description of katta given in Ex.P/17, the katta is found as 12" bore. In view of above the appellants cannot take the benefit of the lacunae left by the Investigation Officer and this submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants also has no force. 96. Last submission advanced was predicated to the non-corroboration of ocular evidence with the medical evidence and the arguments were restricted to the extent of gun shot injury i.e. injury No.5 stated to have been caused by firearm and which is opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, therefore, it would be appropriate to look into the statements of Medico Legal Expert PW-17 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma along with other ocular and link evidence. 97. The argument of learned counsel was based on the statements of PW-17 in his cross-examination where he deposed as under : ^^xksyh nkfguh cxy ls ekjh xbZ vkSj og ck;h vksj Åij dh rjQ vUnj d vksj c<+h bl izdj.k esa xksyh lkeus ls ugha ekjhA ;g lgh gS fd Msest x Msest vkSj bUVjuy Vªsd dks ns[krs gq, 'khV ¼xksyh½ uhps ls pyh vkSj e`rd fdlh Åaps LFkku ij [kM+k gqvk Fkk ;g laHkkouk izrhr gksrh gSA ;g Qk;j yxHkx 15 ls 20 fQV dh nwjh ls gks ldrk gS ;g lgh gS fd e`rd vxj xksyh pykus okyk ,d /kjkry ij ugha Fks xksyh uhps ls Åij dh vksj pyhA** 98. In our discussion above, it is established that PW-1 and PW-3 are trustworthy eye witnesses out of whom PW-3 is also injured and the complainant. According to them, the gun was shot by Akram standing on the pattor of the complainant in front of the deceased at the early hour of the morning when they had not even got up. It has also come in the evidence that Hassu and deceased were sleeping on he pattor on floor. 99. As discussed hereinabove, Pattor is made of patties which is like a roof top and pattor of both the parties were adjacent to each other with a common wall and one can jump and go to the other's pattor as shown in Ex.P/1 Site plan. 100. 99. As discussed hereinabove, Pattor is made of patties which is like a roof top and pattor of both the parties were adjacent to each other with a common wall and one can jump and go to the other's pattor as shown in Ex.P/1 Site plan. 100. It has also been explained by PW-3 Hassu in his statements that in pattor, the central patties are flat whereas right and left patties are on the slope of 1"x1¼" and, therefore, the right and left patties with a difference of 1"x1¼" from the central patti cannot be said to be different surface and from this itself read along with the ocular evidence, the opinion given by PW-17 Medico Legal expert that the accused and victim were not on the same surface is belied. Secondly, hi statement that gun was not shot from front but from the side or behind and that it was from downwards to upwards is also not believable in the light of other evidence because the witnesses have categorically stated that accused Akram was at a distance of "teen chaar haath" i.e. approximately 7-8 ft from the deceased and was on the pattor; meaning thereby the distance was not 15-20 ft as stated by PW-17 and it was also not shot from downwards to upwards but was from the same surface. 101. The most important fact is that the person conducting the post-mortem was not a ballistic expert and probability of firing from 15-20 ft has been told by doctor on the basis of probability and on what basis this opinion has been formed, is also not clear and just because the doctor has stated about the distance to be 15-20 ft, the ocular evidence of eye-witnesses in particular, the injured eye-witness cannot be ignored. Even otherwise, the fact that the gun shot has entered at a spot which is 7 cm below the right nipple of the deceased and on the left side, and the pallets have also been found in an area of 6x5 inch itself shows that gun was not shot from a distance of 15-20 ft, because in that situation, these pallets would not have covered only an area of 6x5 cm rather it would have covered double that area. This also supports the fact that the pistol (katta) not shot from a distance of 15x20 ft but from close contact and from front. 102. This also supports the fact that the pistol (katta) not shot from a distance of 15x20 ft but from close contact and from front. 102. Medical evidence also shows that rib No.7 & 8 had fracture on right hand side from which it is clear that gun was shot from front which after causing injury 7" below the right nipple entered 7th and 8th rib of deceased whereafter the pallets got diverted towards left. That also corroborates the facts that fire was shot from front and not from behind or from extreme side of victim. 103. Another important aspect is that 40 pallets and one plastic cartridge was found in the thorasic cavity spread into an area of 15.5x13.5 cm and such a situation could not have arisen in the case of a fire from a distance of 15-20 ft because in that situation the pallets fired from such a distance would have entered a bigger area and found not only in the body of deceased but would have gone even beyond. Moreover the plastic cartridge could also not have entered the thorasic cavity from such a distance, therefore, the medical opinion about the distance of fire does not appear to be correct. 104. Even otherwise, the Apex Court has time and again held that, reliable direct evidence, cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence In the matter of State of M.P. vs. Dharkole- (2004) 13 SCC 308 , the Apex Court held "..... testimony of eye-witnesses should be tested independently and if found trustworthy, same cannot be discarded merely because it is at variance with medical opinion. It was further held that it would be erroneous to accord undue primary to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye-witnesses' account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the 'variable' keeping the medical evidence as the "constant". Where the eye-witnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive". 105. Again in the case of Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 , the Apex Court held that reliable direct evidence should not be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence. In para No.23 of the said judgment, it was held as under : "23. . . . . . . . The doctor was an expert on medical science and not a ballistic expert. In para No.23 of the said judgment, it was held as under : "23. . . . . . . . The doctor was an expert on medical science and not a ballistic expert. Otherwise also, the opinion of the expert would lose its significance in view of the reliable, consistent ocular testimony of PW-1. Thus such a plea has to be rejected for two reasons, (1) that if direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable, the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence, and (2) if medical evidence when properly read shows two alternative possibilities but not any inconsistency, the one consistent with the reliable and satisfactory statements of the eye-witness has to be accepted. 106. In the same manner, in another case where the version of eye-witnesses was that the injury to the victim was caused by country made pistol shot-Medical evidence was that the injury was not caused by fire arm and margins of wounds were found everted. It was held that evidence of eye witnesses could not be rejected because of such medical evidence. (See (1994) Supp (1) SCC 528-Suraj Pal vs. State of U.P.). 107. In a recent case decided on 16.12.2010 reported titled as Mohd. Mian vs. State of U.P. reported in 2011(2) SCC 721 , the Apex Court discussing the law with regard to the firearm tag with the fact that trajectory of the bullet by itself is not a safe basis for assessing the entire evidence. In that case, the trial Court had acquitted the accused on the basis of medical evidence stating that it did not corroborate to ocular version. 108. However, in that case, the High Court, reappraised the evidence and setting aside the order of acquittal, passed by the trial Court, observed that eye-witnesses, particularly injured one could not have been disbelieved. It was further observed that PW-2 was gravely injured in the incident and a perusal of FIR, revealed that he was indeed an eye-witness, his presence, therefore, could not be doubted. Further it was observed that I.O. prepared site plan on his instructions and also carried out preliminary investigations at site. Besides PW-2 who was injured, there was another witness PW-3 (as in this case PW-1 Islam) was totally independent witness. PW-3 also figured in site plan as having seen murder from a very short distance. 109. Accused persons had fired from roof of house. Besides PW-2 who was injured, there was another witness PW-3 (as in this case PW-1 Islam) was totally independent witness. PW-3 also figured in site plan as having seen murder from a very short distance. 109. Accused persons had fired from roof of house. In that case, the High Court observed that merely because entry and exist wounds were either parallel to each other or, exist wounds were either parallel to each other or, exist wound slightly higher than entry wound, would not detract from other evidence. The Apex Court in appeal filed by the appellants held hat trajectory of bullet alone would not be a safe basis for assessing entire evidence and Apex Court found that reasons given by the trial Court were not well considered and that the High court had rightly convicted the accused. 110. Apex Court, observing that the performance of country made weapons was unpredictable and uncertain-projectiles could have been deflected from their true path by the bones of tissues that came along the way. It was further held that the question regarding the direction of fire, whether from right to left or from front to back is of medico-legal importance. To ascertain this, it is necessary to know the position of the victim at the time of the discharge of the bullet, when a straight line drawn between the entrance and exit wounds and prolonged in front generally indicates the line of direction. In some cases, it is difficult to determine the direction as the bullet is so often deflected by the tissues that its course is very irregular, also when the bullet wobbles. 111. It has time and again been held that medical evidence is only opinionic evidence and on the basis thereof, ocular evidence of trustworthy witnesses cannot be rejected. 112. In view of foregoing discussion, it can be concluded that this submission of learned counsel for the appellants has no force and is therefore not sustainable. 113. Learned trial Court has, on the basis of testimony of trustworthy eye-witnesses PW-1 Islam, PW-2 Hassu and other circumstances which speak for themselves, rightly arrived at the finding recorded in impugned judgment. Even on reappreciation of evidence on record, we have not been able to arrive at a finding other than the one recorded by the learned trial Court. 114. Accordingly, impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court warrants no interference. Even on reappreciation of evidence on record, we have not been able to arrive at a finding other than the one recorded by the learned trial Court. 114. Accordingly, impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court warrants no interference. Hence the appeal of appellants Akram Aslam and Ashraf being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.) Hindaun City vide impugned judgment dated 28.2.2008 passed in Sessions Case No. 79/2002 (112/2001) is upheld. 115. The appellant Akram is stated to be suffering incarceration whereas appellants Aslam and Ashraf are on bail. Their bail bonds are canceled and they are directed to surrender before the trial Court so as to suffer the remaining sentence. 116. Needless to say that they will be entitled to the benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Jail. 117. The original record of trial Court be returned forthwith along with copy of this order.