Surendra Kumar, J. 1. Seven accused persons namely, Kartar Singh ( appellant No. 1), Amarjit Singh ( appellant No.2), Gurdeep Singh ( appellant No. 3), Bhola Singh ( appellant No.4), Surta Singh ( appellant No. 5) Kakka Singh ( appellant No. 6) and Lakkha Singh ( appellant No. 7), preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and sentence recorded vide judgment and order dated 25.10.1980 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur, in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 1980-State Vs. Kartar Singh and six others, by which all the seven accused persons ( appellants herein) were convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They were further convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months Rigorous Imprisonment. One appellant namely, Lakkha Singh was also convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to one year Rigour Imprisonment. Six appellants namely, Kartar Singh, Amarjit Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Bhola Singh, Surta Singh and Kakka Singh were also convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years Rigorous Imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The appellant No. 1 Kartar Singh, appellant No. 4 Bhola Singh and appellant No. 6 Kakka Singh have died pending consideration of their appeal and on account of their deaths, their appeal has been abated vide orders dated 3.9.2003 and 11.7.2012 respectively. 3. The prosecution case, as mentioned in the F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 and as emerged in the evidence, in brief, is that the accused Kartar Singh was the first Pradhan of village Temra, which was within the circle of Police Station Bilaspur and was the resident of the said village. There was old animosity between the complainant Jagir Singh, also a resident of the said village Temra and the members of his family with accused Kartar Singh. About 25 or 26 days prior to 8.11.1979 accused Gurdeep Singh, who is son of accused Kartar Singh, along with his relative Trilok Singh came to the house of the complainant and hurled abuses. When they were asked not to abuse, Trilok Singh brought out his pistol, but he was caught hold by deceased Kartar Singh, ( a different person from accused incidentally of the same name Kartar Singh) the father of the complainant, along with his pistol with the help of Uttam Singh, Harnam Singh and Joginder Singh. When they were asked not to abuse, Trilok Singh brought out his pistol, but he was caught hold by deceased Kartar Singh, ( a different person from accused incidentally of the same name Kartar Singh) the father of the complainant, along with his pistol with the help of Uttam Singh, Harnam Singh and Joginder Singh. Gurdeep Singh managed to run away. Trilok Singh along with the pistol was taken to police station Bilaspur by the deceased Kartar Singh, who got a case registered against him and got him shut in the lock-up of the police station. This was not liked by accused Kartar Singh and his companions. On the following day, accused Kartar Singh came at the house of the complainant and expressed that he would surely take revenge of the fact that Trilok Singh was got hauled up by the deceased Kartar Singh. On 8.11.1979 at about sun-set deceased Kartar Singh, his deceased son Kapoor Singh, his two other sons Jagir Singh and Santok Singh, his wife Smt. Jit Kaur and his daughter Bhajan Kaur were sitting on cots in their court-yard. The cot on which deceased Kartar Singh and his deceased son Kapoor Singh were sitting, was near the main-door of the house. All the accused, out of whom Kartar Singh, Amarjit Singh, Bhola Singh and Surta Singh were armed with swords, Gurdeep Singh armed with Gandasa, Kakka Singh armed with Tonki and Lakkha Singh armed with Lathi/Danda, arrived and entered into the house of the complainant. On entering into the house, accused Kartar Singh said that the deceased Kartar Singh and his sons be dragged out and killed. On this exhortation, the accused persons caught hold the two deceased, Kartar Singh and Kapoor Singh, and Santok Singh PW-2, dragged them out of the house and started carrying them on the way towards west. The complainant Jagir Singh, his mother Smt. Jit Kaur and his sister Bhajan Kaur followed them. On this exhortation, the accused persons caught hold the two deceased, Kartar Singh and Kapoor Singh, and Santok Singh PW-2, dragged them out of the house and started carrying them on the way towards west. The complainant Jagir Singh, his mother Smt. Jit Kaur and his sister Bhajan Kaur followed them. When the accused persons along with both the deceased persons and Santok Singh reached at the back of the house of Thakur Singh, witnesses Bachan Singh and Harnam Singh rushed there on hearing the cries of the complainant, his mother and sister and of Santok Singh and tried to get the deceased persons and Santok Singh released from the clutches of the accused persons but the accused persons immediately started attackingssaulting the two deceased and witness Santok Singh with their respective weapons. Kartar Singh and Kapoor Singh fell down and died at the spot on having received severe injuries. Santok Singh also received Lathi injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by Jagir Singh, Bachan Singh, Harnam Singh, Smt. Jit Kaur and Bhajan Kaur. After murdering Kartar Singh and his son Kapoor Singh, the accused persons ran-away towards river side in the west. The injured Santok Singh was brought to his house by the complainant and his mother and sister. Thereafter the complainant went to police station Bilaspur and lodged a F.I.R. of the incident at 9.30 P.M. against the accused persons narrating facts, names of the assailants and the weapons used by them in this incident of double murder. 4. The investigation of the case was taken up by Sri Kunwar Pal Singh, Station Officer of Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur ( PW-12). He started for the place of occurrence along with S.I. Harkesh Singh and the first informant Jagir Singh ( PW-1). He recorded the statement of the first informant ( PW-1) at the junction of the roads of Bilaspur, where the first informant was waiting for some vehicle. This Investigating Officer PW-12 reached at the spot and directed S.I. Sri B.P. Singh ( PW-4) to prepare inquest reports of the dead bodies of the deceased persons and also directed S.I. Harkesh Singh ( PW-10) to search out the accused persons including taking search of houses of the accused persons. The Investigating Officer himself went to the house of the first informant PW-1 and found Santok Singh PW-2 in an injured condition in the house. The Investigating Officer himself went to the house of the first informant PW-1 and found Santok Singh PW-2 in an injured condition in the house. He immediately sent Santok Singh to the hospital for medical examination and treatment. The Investigating Officer found turbans, a woolen blanket, a Lungi, a towel lying near the dead bodies and took them in his custody by preparing the recovery memos. He also found shoes in the feet of the dead bodies, took off from the feet and kept them in the same bundles, in which the said clothes were kept by preparing recovery memos, Exts. Ka-25 and 26. The investigating Officer also took bloodstained and simple earth from the place of occurrence near the dead bodies and keeping them in separate containers, sealed them by preparing recovery memos, Exts. Ka-27 and 28. Thereafter the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of eye witnesses. 5. The Investigating Officer PW-12 by his evidence proved G.D. entry ( Ext. Ka-32) deposing that through this G.D. entry, both the post mortem reports of the deceased persons and two bundles brought from the hospital were deposited at the police station. There was a mention of pistol in the postmortem report of Kartar Singh and a knife in the post-mortem report of the deceased Kapoor Singh. Both these bundles contained the clothes and the weapons found with the deceased persons separately. 6. S.I. Sri B.P. Singh PW-4 conducted inquest on the dead bodies of the deceased persons and prepared inquest reports and got the dead bodies sealed in clothes. He also prepared photo nash, challan nash and letters for sending the dead bodies for post-mortem and handed over both the dead bodies to constables Rajpal Singh and Inder Pal Singh for taking to mortuary, Rampur for post-mortem examination. 7. Dr. P.L. Shah PW-5 conducted autopsy on the cadaver of Kartar Singh aged about 55 years at 1.30 P.M. on 9.11.1979 and he found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of Kartar Singh:- ( 1). Incised wound 20 cm. x 2 cm. x bone cut. Brain matter visible and coming out. Left parietal region front to back, 7 cm. below vertex. ( 2). Incised wound 6 cm. x 1 cm. x bone cut, brain matter coming out, 2 cm. below injury no. 1. ( 3). Incised wound 15 cm. x 8 cm. Incised wound 20 cm. x 2 cm. x bone cut. Brain matter visible and coming out. Left parietal region front to back, 7 cm. below vertex. ( 2). Incised wound 6 cm. x 1 cm. x bone cut, brain matter coming out, 2 cm. below injury no. 1. ( 3). Incised wound 15 cm. x 8 cm. across left ear, left external ear also cut, Depth up to brain cavity, piece of bone absent from the body underlying the wound. ( 4). Incised wound 6 cm. x 2 cm. x buccal cavity deep, mandible fractured, left cheek from front to back, across the mandible bone. ( 5). Incised wound 4 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep, 9 cm. above right ear, right parieto-occipital region. ( 6). Incised wound 4 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep, 2 cm. below injury No. ( 5). ( 7). Incised punctured wound, 5 cm. x 1.5 cm. x 6 cm. deep, left shoulder front, 3 cm. above anterior fold of Axilla. ( 8). Abraded contusion 12 cm. x 5 cm., left chest front 4th and 5th ribs area. ( 9). Incised wound 15 cm. x 5 cm. x muscle deep, lower scapular region, right side back of chest. ( 10). Contusion 10 cm. x 2 cm., right side back of chest upper part. On internal examination, there were fractures of parietal, temporal and occipital bones at multiple places. Left anterior base was fractured under injury Nos. 1 to 4. Membranes of the brain were badly lacerated. Left lower jaw was fractured underneath injury No. 4. Kartar Singh died due to shock as a result of ante-mortem injury Nos. 1 to 6 caused to brain. These ante-mortem injuries, according to evidence of Dr. P.L. Shah PW-5, were possibly caused on 8.11.1979 and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injury Nos. 1 to 6 were possibly caused by sword, Gandasa and Tonki ( a sharp cutting weapon used for cutting sugar cane grown on the earth). Injury Nos. 8 and 10 were possibly caused by hard blunt object, namely, Lathi. Before the post-mortem, the dead body of Kartar Singh in a sealed cloth along with relevant papers, was handed over to this doctor PW-5 by two constables Rajpal Singh and Indrapal Singh. Injury Nos. 8 and 10 were possibly caused by hard blunt object, namely, Lathi. Before the post-mortem, the dead body of Kartar Singh in a sealed cloth along with relevant papers, was handed over to this doctor PW-5 by two constables Rajpal Singh and Indrapal Singh. The clothes worn by deceased Kartar Singh were put off by PW-5 at the time of post-mortem examination and thereafter the same were sealed in a bundle of cloth. PW-5 proved the post-mortem report of the deceased Kartar Singh as Ext. Ka-14 by his evidence in the trial court. 8. Dr. P.L. Shah PW-5 also conducted autopsy on the cadaver of Kapoor Singh aged about 22 years, son of Kartar Singh on 9.11.1979 at 2.40 P.M. and he found following ante-mortem injuries on his body:- ( 1). Incised wound 12 cm. x 4 cm. x bone cut, starting from right temporal region to left upper eyelid. Nose cut, right eye ball posterior part visible and lacerated. ( 2). Incised wound 15 cm. x 7 cm. x bones also cut. Right zygomatic mandible and mastoid & Ear cut. Wound starting from 2 cm. lateral of right nose to 2 cm. behind mastoid. ( 3). Incised wound 6 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep right angle of jaw. ( 4). Incised wound 6 cm. x 3 cm. x bone cut and cavity deep, superior and scapular region, vertically right side. ( 5). Incised wound 4 cm. x 2 cm. x muscle deep, 2 cm. medial to injury No. ( 4). ( 6). Incised wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep, 2 cm. lateral to injury no. ( 5). ( 7). Incised wound 10 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle deep left scapular region, in the middle wound skin deep in 2 cm. area. ( 8). Multiple abrasions in an area of 3 cm. x 2 cm. chin. On internal examination of the dead body of deceased Kapoor Singh, right maxilla, mosal bone, right temporal zygomatic, right frontal bone, right mandible bone were found fractured under the injury Nos. 1 and 2. Membranes were congested, right scapula and two underlying ribs were fractured under injury No. 4. Upper lobe of right lung was ruptured under injury No. 4. Death of deceased Kapoor Singh was due to shock as a result of injury Nos. 1 and 2. Membranes were congested, right scapula and two underlying ribs were fractured under injury No. 4. Upper lobe of right lung was ruptured under injury No. 4. Death of deceased Kapoor Singh was due to shock as a result of injury Nos. 1 and 2 caused to brain as the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury nos. 1 to 7 could possibly be caused by some sharp edged weapon like sword, Gandasa and Tonki. Injury no. 8 could be caused by friction. Injuries could possibly be caused to the deceased on 8.11.1979 between 6.00-7.00 P.M. Testifying these facts, Dr. Shah PW-5 proved the post-mortem report of the deceased Kapoor Singh as Ext. Ka-16. Dead body of the deceased Kapoor Singh was brought by constables Rajpal Singh and Inder Pal Singh. The dead body in a sealed condition was handed over to PW-5 along with relevant papers. Clothes of the deceased were taken off at the time of post mortem examination and clothes after sealing were given back to the constables. Dr. Shah PW-5 clearly testified in his evidence that before receiving the dead bodies, the seals of each dead body were tallied with the respective sample seal. The seals of both the dead bodies were found intact. 9. Dr. R.S. Gangwar PW-7 examined Santok Singh ( PW-2) on 9.11.1979 at 3.30 P.M. at P.H.C. Bilaspur and as per injury report Ext. Ka-19, found the following injuries on his person:- ( I). Abrasion 2 cm. x 1.5 cm. on right side front of forehead, 2.5 cm. above the right eye-brow. ( II). Contusion 17 cm. x 12 cm. on back of right arm, just above the elbow. Colour of the injury was red. ( III). Contusion 10 cm. x 1.5 cm. on back of right side chest on the scapular region in lower part circular. ( IV). Contusion 11 cm. x 1.5 cm. on back of left side chest, 1.5 cm. below the left scapula. ( V). Contused swelling 12 cm. x 13 cm. on dorsum of left hand, just below the wrist joint. ( VI). Contusion 11 cm. x 2 cm. on outer side and back of the right leg, 10 cm. below the right knee joint. ( VII). Abrasion 1.5 cm. x 2.5 cm. on lateral side of right leg, 4 cm. above the right ankle. Inj. Nos. x 13 cm. on dorsum of left hand, just below the wrist joint. ( VI). Contusion 11 cm. x 2 cm. on outer side and back of the right leg, 10 cm. below the right knee joint. ( VII). Abrasion 1.5 cm. x 2.5 cm. on lateral side of right leg, 4 cm. above the right ankle. Inj. Nos. ( I), ( VII) were caused by friction and ( II) to ( VI) by blunt object. Duration- About 1/4 days old. Inj. No. ( II) and ( V) were kept under observation. Rest injuries were simple. According to evidence of Dr. Gangwar PW-7, the injuries found on the person of the injured Santok Singh PW-2 could possibly be caused on 8.11.1979 around 5.30-6.00 P.M. by hard blunt object like lathi/danda. 10. S.I. Sri Harkesh Singh ( PW-10) took searches of the houses of the accused persons on 9.11.1979 and during search at about 5.00 A.M. of the house of the accused Bhola Singh, from eastern faced Kotha thereof, he recovered bloodstained Tonki ( Ext. 18) and a Danda ( Ext. 19) and sealed them after preparing recovery memo Ext. Ka-22. From the search of the house of accused Kartar Singh, on the same day, he recovered bloodstained Gandasa Ext. 20, from the eastern faced Kotha thereof and sealed this Gandasa in a piece of cloth by preparing recovery memo Ext. Ka-23. All the articles recovered during search were handed over by Sri Harkesh Singh to the Station Officer Kunwar Pal Singh at the spot itself. S.I. Sri Harkesh Singh on 9.11.1979 at about 3.00 P.M. arrested one accused Bhola Singh from near his house on the way when he was going from his house towards east and then recovered bloodstained sword ( Ext. 21) from him. He sealed the sword after preparing recovery memo Ext. Ka-24. 11. Sri Kunwar Pal Singh, Station Officer PW-12, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan of the place of occurrence in the morning and also prepared site plan of the place of the arrest of the accused Bhola Singh. Station Officer returned to the police station at 6.35 P.M. on 9.11.1979 and deposited the aforesaid sealed bundles in the Malkhana of the Police Station and locked the accused Bhola Singh in the lock up, vide G.D. entry Ka-31. 12. Station Officer returned to the police station at 6.35 P.M. on 9.11.1979 and deposited the aforesaid sealed bundles in the Malkhana of the Police Station and locked the accused Bhola Singh in the lock up, vide G.D. entry Ka-31. 12. Constables Rajpal Singh PW-8 and Inder Pal Singh handed over both the dead bodies in a sealed condition to Dr. P.L. Shah PW-5 along with relevant papers for autopsy. Constable Rajpal Singh PW-8 deposed that he along with constable Inder Pal Singh carried the dead bodies in a sealed condition to mortuary, Rampur for post-mortem and produced them before Dr. Shah for conducting post-mortem examination. PW-8 identified the dead bodies of the deceased persons before Dr. Shah. 13. After completion of the investigation, on 22.11.1979 charge sheet was submitted by Investigating Officer PW-12. After submission of the charge sheet and furnishing copies of the entitled papers to the accused persons, the case was committed by the Magistrate Ist Class to the Court of Session, where the same was registered as Session Trial No. 41 of 1980. 14. Thereafter accused Lakkha Singh was charged under Sections 147, 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. for having committed riot armed with lathi and for committing the murder of Kartar Singh and Kapoor Singh and causing simple injury to Santok Singh in prosecution of common object of the unlawful assembly which he formed along with other accused persons. Remaining six accused persons Kartar Singh, Amarjit Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Bhola Singh, Surta Singh and Kakka Singh were charged under Sections 148, 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. for having committed riot armed with sharp edged weapons like sword, Gandasa and Tonki and for having committed murders of Kartar Singh and Kapoor Singh and causing simple injury to Santok Singh by the said unlawful assembly. The charges were read over and explained to them. All the accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and did not plea guilty and claimed to be tried on the said charges. 15. To prove the charges levelled against the accused persons, the prosecution examined three eye witnesses namely, Jagir Singh, first informant PW-1, injured Santok Singh PW-2 and Bachan Singh PW-3. 16. In the formal evidence, S.I. Sri B.P. Singh PW-4 was examined to prove the inquest reports, photo nash, challan nash and letters for sending dead bodies for postmortem. 15. To prove the charges levelled against the accused persons, the prosecution examined three eye witnesses namely, Jagir Singh, first informant PW-1, injured Santok Singh PW-2 and Bachan Singh PW-3. 16. In the formal evidence, S.I. Sri B.P. Singh PW-4 was examined to prove the inquest reports, photo nash, challan nash and letters for sending dead bodies for postmortem. Constable Rajpal Singh PW-8 was also examined to prove that he along with other constable Inder Pal Singh had taken both the dead bodies in a sealed condition to the mortuary and handed over the same along with relevant papers to Dr. P.L. Shah PW-5 and during their custody, none was allowed to touch the sealed dead bodies and seals remained intact throughout. These facts were proved by PW-8. 17. Head constable Sri Devendra Prasad PW-9 was also examined by the prosecution to prove that the F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1, was written as per dictation of the first informant Jagir Singh on 8.11.1979 at 9.30 P.M. and entry thereof was made in G.D. No. 56, vide Ext. Ka-20 18. The prosecution also examined in formal evidence, S.I. Harkesh Singh PW-10 who proved that during search, he recovered bloodstained Tonki and danda ( Exts. 18 and 19) from the house of accused Bhola Singh and also recovered bloodstained Gandasa ( Ext. 20) from the house of accused Kartar Singh. He arrested the accused Bhola Singh and recovered bloodstained sword ( Ext. Ka-21) from the accused Bhola Singh. 19. Sri Bahal Singh PW-11 was also examined by the prosecution, who proved the inquest reports of Kartar Singh and Kapoor Singh ( Exts. Ka-2 and Ka-8 respectively). He was a panch witness. He was also a witness of memo of taking bloodstained clothes of the deceased Kapoor Singh, vide Ext. Ka-26 and taking bloodstained earth and plain earth from near the dead body of Kapoor Singh, vide Ext. Ka-27. He was also a witness of taking bloodstained and plain earth from near the dead body of Kartar Singh vide Ext. Ka-28. He was a witness along with Jeet Singh, of the recovery of danda and bloodstained Tonki, vide Ext. Ka-22, from the house of accused Bhola Singh. He was also a witness of recovery of bloodstained Gandasa ( Ext. 20), from the house of accused Kartar Singh, vide Ext. Ka-23. He was also a witness of the recovery of bloodstained sword ( Ext. Ka-22, from the house of accused Bhola Singh. He was also a witness of recovery of bloodstained Gandasa ( Ext. 20), from the house of accused Kartar Singh, vide Ext. Ka-23. He was also a witness of the recovery of bloodstained sword ( Ext. Ka-21) from the hand of the accused Bhola Singh, vide Ext. Ka-24. All these facts were proved by this PW-11 by his evidence in the trial court. 20. The prosecution also examined the then Station Officer Kunwar Pal Singh PW-12, Investigating Officer of the case, who took pains in making prompt impartial and complete investigation of this double murder case and collected evidence including incriminating articles and weapons of offence from the accused persons. Thereafter he submitted charge sheet on finding sufficient evidence against the accused persons. All these facts were proved by this Investigating Officer by his evidence in the trial court. 21. The prosecution also examined Dr. P.L. Shah PW-5, who conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of the deceased persons and proved postmortem reports of the deceased persons, Kartar Singh and Kapoor Singh as Ka-14 and Ka-16 respectively. 22. Dr. R.S. Gangwar PW-7 was also examined to prove the injuries of the injured Santok Singh PW-2 vide injury report Ext. Ka-19. 23. The accused persons denied the prosecution case alleging their false implication on account of animosity. They also denied the recovery of the incriminating articles namely, weapon of offence during search. The appellant Amarjit Singh taking plea of alibi stated that he was not present in the village on the day of occurrence but had already gone in some marriage at Chital Bagh. The appellant Gurdeep Singh also stated that on 8.11.1979, the day of the incident, after sun set, when he was teaching Surta Singh ( appellant) at the house of Surta Singh, just then both the deceased persons Kartar Singh and Kapoor Singh and injured Santok Singh holding swords came at the house of Surta Singh, abused and challenged them to come out, Both the appellants Surta Singh and Gurdeep Singh came out from the house of Surta Singh when these members of the prosecution side including deceased persons are alleged to have assaulted Surta Singh and Gurdeep Singh with their respective weapons. It was further stated by the appellant Gurdeep Singh that in order to save their lives, he ( Gurdeep Singh) and Surta Singh used weapons in their right of private defence and in the said attack, Gurdeep Singh and Surta Singh also sustained injuries. Gurdeep Singh further stated that remaining five accused persons were not present at that time at the house of the appellant Surta Singh and at that time both the deceased persons and injured Santok Singh seemed to be in an inebriated state. 24. Denying the prosecution case, alleging false implication, one appellant Surta Singh also stated that on the day of incident i.e. 8.11.1979, he was ploughing his field in the morning. There was paddy crop, which had been cut and on the day, both the deceased persons allowed their cattle to enter in the field and his paddy grains were damaged. When he tried to drive away the cattle of the deceased persons, some hot-talks and quarrel between him and both the deceased persons took place and the deceased persons succeeded in getting their cattle released when they challenged to see him later on. After sun set, on the same day, both the deceased persons Kartar Singh and Kapoor Singh and injured Santok Singh each armed with sword, came at the house of Surta Singh, where Gurdeep Singh was also present. When the deceased persons hurled abuses, both the appellants Surta Singh and Gurdeep Singh asked them not to abuse, they were attackedssaulted by swords by both the deceased persons and injured Santok Singh. The appellant Surta Singh also stated that to ward off of the attackssault, started by the deceased persons and one injured, he and Gurdeep Singh, exercising their right of private defence, also made defence attackssault, in which Surta Singh used lathi and Gurdeep Singh used sword. He further stated that both the deceased persons Kartar Singh and Kapoor Singh and injured Santok Singh were in drunken state. 25. According to statement of appellant Lakkha Singh, he had been falsely implicated due to his relationship with the co-appellant Gurdeep Singh and he was not present at the time of incident. He further stated that both the deceased persons Kartar Singh and Kapoor Singh and injured Santok Singh were in drunken state. 25. According to statement of appellant Lakkha Singh, he had been falsely implicated due to his relationship with the co-appellant Gurdeep Singh and he was not present at the time of incident. Thus, two appellants namely, Gurdeep Singh ( appellant No. 3) and Surta Singh ( appellant No. 5) have taken the case of self defence and stated that they also assaulted two deceased persons and injured Santok Singh with sword and lathi respectively, and in their right of private defence, they were justified to cause injuries to both the deceased persons and injured Santok Singh PW-2. Due to injuries caused in the exercise of right of private defence by the appellants, the deceased Kartar Singh and Kapoor Singh had died. 26. Two appellants Surta Singh and Gurdeep Singh got themselves examined on 14.11.1979 at 9.30 A.M. and 10.00 A.M. respectively, at State Dispensary Kemri, District Rampur by Dr. A.K. Sharma, Medical Officer, DW-1. 27. Dr. A.K. Sharma DW-1 examined the appellant Surta Singh on 14.11.1979 at 9.30 A.M. and found the following injuries on his person ( Ext. Kha-2):- 1. One septic wound 1.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. x skin deep on the top of nose. 2. Incised wound 7 cm. x 2 cm. x muscle deep on the inner side of left hand, 2.5 cm. above the base of left little finger. The wound was infected and pus was present on the wound. Duration: about one week. Nature: All the injuries were simple. Injury No. 2 was caused by sharp edged weapon and cause of injury no. 1 could not be ascertained. According to evidence of Dr. Sharma DW-1, injury no. 1 could possibly be caused by lathi/danda and also by sword as he could not establish his opinion because there was septic in the said wound/injury No. 1. 28. Dr. Sharma, same day at 10.00 A.M. examined the appellant Gurdeep Singh and found following injuries on his person ( Ext. Kha-3):- 1. Incised wound infected with pus 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep on the inner side base of left thumb. 2. Incised wound infected with pus 1.5 cm. x 1/2 cm. x skin deep on the front of middle phalynx of left ring finger. 3. Incised wound infected with pus 1 cm. Kha-3):- 1. Incised wound infected with pus 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep on the inner side base of left thumb. 2. Incised wound infected with pus 1.5 cm. x 1/2 cm. x skin deep on the front of middle phalynx of left ring finger. 3. Incised wound infected with pus 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep on the left side of abdomen, 8 cm. below and outside the umbilicus. Duration: About one week. Nature:- All the injuries were simple and caused by sharp edged weapon. Injuries of both these appellants, according to the evidence of Dr. Sharma, were one week old and were simple in nature. In cross examination, Dr. Sharma DW-1 clearly admitted the probability that injury No. 1 of the appellant Surta Singh was caused with sword. A perusal of the injuries of both the appellants, reveal that they could be got manufactured subsequently and pus formation starts after 36 hours of receiving the injuries. According to Dr. Sharma, he could not give any data on the basis of which he could say that the injuries were a week old at the time of medical examination of both these appellants. 29. Mewa Singh DW-2 was examined by accused persons to prove the version set up by defence that took place in day time. According to this DW-2, on the day of the incident around 9.00-9.30 A.M. DW-2 was going to his field and while passing through the field of appellant Surta Singh, 5-6 cattles of the deceased persons were grazing paddy crop lying in the filed of appellant Surta Singh. Surta Singh tried to take the cattles to cattle-house but the deceased persons got the cattles released when some hot-talks and quarrel took place. DW-2 is not a witness of the incident that allegedly took place in the evening of 8.11.1979 at the house of Surta Singh, as set up by the appellants Surta Singh and Gurdeep Singh in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, DW-2 confined his statement to the incident of cattle grazing in the morning. 30. The evidence of Dr. Naresh Chandra Agrawal CW-1 was recorded by the trial judge to find out the veracity of the injuries of these two appellants. This CW-1 examined the appellant Surta Singh and Gurdeep Singh on 19.11.1979 while they were lodged in jail in this case. 30. The evidence of Dr. Naresh Chandra Agrawal CW-1 was recorded by the trial judge to find out the veracity of the injuries of these two appellants. This CW-1 examined the appellant Surta Singh and Gurdeep Singh on 19.11.1979 while they were lodged in jail in this case. The injuries of both these appellants, according to Dr. Agrawal, were simple in nature and duration of the injuries could not be ascertained but the injuries were beyond period of 48 hours of the medical examination in jail. 31. We have heard Sri I.M. Khan, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sriram Rawat, learned Amicus Curiae as well as Sri Sangam Lal Keshwarwani, learned A.G.A. and perused the evidence available on record, in the light of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides. 32. Before considering the submissions raised by learned counsel for the rival parties, we would like to have a glance at the evidence of the eye witnesses. In this case, the prosecution examined Jagir Singh ( PW-1), first informant and son of deceased Kartar Singh, injured Santok Singh ( PW-2), who is also son of deceased Kartar Singh and Bachan Singh ( PW-3), nephew of deceased Kartar Singh. All these three eye witnesses including injured witness have reiterated the prosecution story in detail in their evidence, the same has been corroborated by medical evidence. 33. According to testimony of Jagir Singh PW-1, long before this incident of murder, the appellant Kartar Singh along with Laxman Singh had caused firearm injury/bullet injury to deceased Kartar Singh, father of Jagir Singh PW-1 and in that case, the appellant Kartar Singh and Laxman Singh were convicted by the trial court but acquitted by the High Court. Around 20 days before this alleged incident, the appellant Gurdeep Singh along with his relative Trilok Singh had come at the house of this PW-1, who hurled abuses to both the deceased persons. When the deceased persons asked them not to abuse, Trilok Singh took out a pistol but the deceased Kartar Singh captured him along with pistol with the help of some other persons and Gurdeep Singh managed to escape. Trilok Singh was taken to the police station and a criminal case was registered against Trilok Singh. When the deceased persons asked them not to abuse, Trilok Singh took out a pistol but the deceased Kartar Singh captured him along with pistol with the help of some other persons and Gurdeep Singh managed to escape. Trilok Singh was taken to the police station and a criminal case was registered against Trilok Singh. That incident caused grudge to the appellant Kartar Singh and enmity got developed on that score and then the appellants committed this crime of double murder, besides causing injury to the injured Santok Singh in the alleged incident by assaulting sword, Gandasa and Tonki after entering into the house of the deceased persons on 8.11.1979 around sun set. According to evidence of first informant Jagir Singh PW-1, all the appellants armed with sword, Gandasa and Danda formed an unlawful assembly, came to his house where the deceased persons and other family members were talking while sitting on the cots and both the deceased persons Kartar Singh and Kapoor Singh were dragged by the appellants at the exhortation of the appellant Kartar Singh with common object of killing them. They were dragged by the accused persons up to the back of the house of Thakur Singh, where the deceased Kartar Singh and his son resisted to go further. The accused persons assaulted with their respective weapons, as a result thereof, Kartar Singh and Kapoor Singh sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot and Santok Singh PW-2 sustained injuries. Santok Singh was brought to his house with the help of his mother and sister and then the F.I.R. was lodged at the police station same evening at 9.30 P.M. on 8.11.1979 after covering a distance of 8 miles. All these facts have been corroborated by evidence of injured Santok Singh PW-2 and further strengthened by testimony of Bachan Singh PW-3. 34. It is evident from the testimonies of these eye witnesses including injured witness PW-2 that the appellants Kartar Singh, Amarjit Singh, Bhola Singh and Surta Singh, each were armed with sword, Kakka Singh with Tonki, Gurdeep Singh with Gandasa and Lakkha Singh with Danda and all these appellants assaulted Kartar Singh and his son Kapoor Singh with their respective weapons, causing them fatal injuries resulting in their instantaneous deaths and they also inflicted injuries to Santok Singh PW-2 in prosecution of their common object. Two appellants Amarjit Singh and Gurdeep Singh are real brothers being sons of appellant Kartar Singh. The appellant Bhola Singh is the party man of appellant Kartar Singh, whereas two appellants Surta Singh and Kakka Singh are sons of Bhola Singh. The appellant Lakkha Singh is the nephew of appellant Kartar Singh. This relationship amongst the appellants is not disputed and not challenged by the appellants. Bachan Singh PW-3 is the nephew of the deceased Kartar Singh and lives near the house of deceased Kartar Singh. Bachan Singh PW-3 reached the house of deceased Kartar Singh on hearing the noise from the house of the deceased Kartar Singh and also went to the place of occurrence where the said incident took place and he witnessed the whole incident. This PW-3 narrates the manner in which the incident took place. He clearly names the weapons wielded by each of the appellants, the weapons used in the said assault causing injuries to both the deceased persons and also causing injuries to injured PW-2. PW-3 clearly narrates how both the deceased persons were murdered by the appellants and injuries were caused to Santok Singh PW-2 by the appellant Lakkha Singh with lathi. 35. Besides ocular evidence of the eye witnesses Jagir Singh PW-1 and Bachan Singh PW-3 including injured witness Santok Singh PW-2, there is evidence of recovery of bloodstained Gandasa Ext. 20, bloodstained Tonki Ext.18 and bloodstained Sword Ext. 21 and Danda Ext. 19 against the appellants. Learned trial Judge tried to deal about the presence of blood on these weapons of assault. These weapons of assault were not sent for chemical examination to find out whether the blood was human blood or not. Learned trial Judge observed that since these weapons were not sent to chemical examiner, it would be futile and waste of time to discuss this aspect of the matter. 36. Learned counsel for the appellants has also raised this contention before us. There is a strong evidence of recovery of weapons of assault either from the house of the appellants during searches or from the persons of the appellants and said recovery cannot be doubted just on the ground that weapons were not sent to chemical examiner for testing the blood whether the blood was human blood or not. 37. There is a strong evidence of recovery of weapons of assault either from the house of the appellants during searches or from the persons of the appellants and said recovery cannot be doubted just on the ground that weapons were not sent to chemical examiner for testing the blood whether the blood was human blood or not. 37. We have considered the point of exercise of right of private defence by the appellants Gurdeep Singh and Surta Singh, as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants during course of arguments before us. The burden shifts upon the appellants to prove the case set up by them. The defence case as set up by these appellants, appears to be incredible and seems to be palpably false and concocted. If the incident, as pleaded by these two appellants, had taken place in the evening of 8.11.1979 at the house of appellant Surta Singh in the presence of co-appellant Gurdeep Singh and they sustained injuries mentioned above, no F.I.R. was lodged by the appellants regarding cross case or cross version at the police station. No witness to prove this defence case of the right of private defence was examined at the trial. Both these appellants did not get themselves medically examined till 14.11.1979. According to these appellants, Gurdutt Singh and Teja were present when the cross incident took place at the house of appellant Surta Singh but none of them was examined to establish the case of right of private defence, even none of these appellants had dared to come in the witness box to depose the cross version. 38. We are fully aware of the legal proposition that the accused personsppellants are not bound to establish their defence version by positive evidence like the prosecution and it is sufficient for them to bring on record the preponderance of probabilities in their favour. Let us consider whether the preponderance of probabilities on record is in favour of the appellants. In our opinion, after carefully scrutinizing the preponderance of probabilities in favour of the defence, case of right of private defence lacks. These two appellants are said to have sustained injuries in the alleged cross incident or cross version and they got themselves examined on 14.11.1979 on the sixth day of the alleged incident by Dr. A.K. Sharma DW-1. In our opinion, after carefully scrutinizing the preponderance of probabilities in favour of the defence, case of right of private defence lacks. These two appellants are said to have sustained injuries in the alleged cross incident or cross version and they got themselves examined on 14.11.1979 on the sixth day of the alleged incident by Dr. A.K. Sharma DW-1. The nature of injuries received by these two appellants is such that they could be got easily manufactured or self suffered in order to create a defence. No F.I.R. was lodged by these two appellants or their relatives of that incident, as alleged by them. Had the incident happened, as alleged by these two appellants and had they sustained injuries, as alleged by them, they would have certainly lodged the F.I.R. and got themselves medically examined soon after the incident. They were living in the same vicinity in which the two deceased persons suffered death and third person sustained injuries. The other appellants were also living in that very vicinity. Thus, the appellants or their father or relatives must have come to know about the incident of the two murders immediately after the incident, as pleaded by these two appellants. If during exercise of right of private defence by these two appellants by use of sword by one and lathi by other and two persons had lost their lives and third person had sustained injuries in the incident and in the manner as alleged by these two appellants, F.I.R. would have certainly been lodged on behalf of the appellants and the appellants would have got themselves medically examined without any delay. They would have not waited for about a week for their medical examination. They would have not waited for about a week for their medical examination. It is not at all believeable that the occurrence had taken place in the manner as alleged by these two appellants Gurdeep Singh and Surta Singh at the house of the appellant Surta Singh in the evening of 8.11.1979, where both the deceased persons and third injured, each armed with sword, would have reached and all three attacked with swords at the two appellants and these two appellants sustained simple injuries, whereas both the deceased persons and injured PW-2, who had allegedly reached at the house of the appellant Surta Singh in a preplanned way, making full preparation and both the deceased persons were killed and that too during exercise of right of private defence by the two appellants namely Gurdeep Singh and Surta Singh, when Gurdeep Singh was armed with sword and Surta Singh with lathi and both these appellants inflicted so many injuries on those persons that they succumbed to the injuries at the spot. 39. We have considered this defence version very cautiously and deeply. Both the dead bodies were found at the place as narrated by prosecution in its prosecution case and none of these two dead bodies was found near the house of Surta Singh. The evidence on record clearly establishes and proves that the incident in question took place in the same manner on the said date, time and place as alleged by the prosecution. There are many hints in the evidence on record that the injuries mentioned in Exts. Kha-2 and Kha-3 of these two appellants had not been caused to them on 8.11.1979. It was quite probable that on getting legal advice both the appellants got the injuries manufactured some time on 14.11.1979, which were simple and insignificant and could be easily self suffered and just thereafter got themselves medically examined in order to create defence. This is a strong possibility in this case. The defence version or defence theory of exercise of the right of private defence seems to be quite improbable and unnatural in this case. A futile effort or exercise was done by these appellants to create false theory of the right of private defence. This is a strong possibility in this case. The defence version or defence theory of exercise of the right of private defence seems to be quite improbable and unnatural in this case. A futile effort or exercise was done by these appellants to create false theory of the right of private defence. Both these appellants were assaulted by three persons ( two deceased and one injured with swords) and both these appellants were allowed to escape with simple injuries, particularly, when the deceased persons had reached the house of Surta Singh, son of Bhola Singh in the evening of 8.11.1979 holding swords. Thus, the theory of committing murders of two deceased persons and causing injury to third person Santok Singh PW-2 in exercise of right of private defence by these two appellants Gurdeep Singh and Surta Singh, is quite improbable. 40. It is worthy to mention here that defence suggestion was put to injured Santok Singh PW-2 that when both the deceased and injured person reached the house of Surta Singh and abused them, then Surta Singh armed with lathi and Gurdeep Singh armed with Kripan, on being challenged by trio, came out from the house and duo assaulted the trio with Lathi and Kripan. Thus, the use of Kripan by one appellant Gurdeep Singh in the course of assault was suggested to PW-2 on behalf of accused persons in the trial. Thus, according to these appellants, the appellant Surta Singh was armed with lathi and co-appellant Gurdeep Singh was armed with Kripan and they assaulted upon both the deceased persons with Lathi and Kripan but the injuries sustained by both the deceased persons Kartar Singh and Kapoor Singh could not be caused with Kripan. Those injuries were caused with swords. We may also mention here that the appellant Surta Singh in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that he was armed with Lathi and Gurdeep Singh was armed with Sword, which they used in their right of private defence. Thus, the suggestion on behalf of the appellants, the use of Kripan by Gurdeep Singh in causing the injuries on the bodies of deceased persons to injured witness PW-2, was changed to that of sword. All these facts mentioned above, make the defence theory unbelieveable and quite improbable. 41. Thus, the suggestion on behalf of the appellants, the use of Kripan by Gurdeep Singh in causing the injuries on the bodies of deceased persons to injured witness PW-2, was changed to that of sword. All these facts mentioned above, make the defence theory unbelieveable and quite improbable. 41. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was no motive for the appellants to commit this crime. 42. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that there was an old enmity between the deceased persons and appellant Kartar Singh and his sons prior to this incident. Long before this incident, the appellant Kartar Singh and others were convicted for causing firearm injury to the deceased Kartar Singh and they were convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to five years R.I. by the sessions court but were acquitted in an appeal by the High Court about 14-15 years ago. Apart from it, about 20-21 days prior to the incident in question, the appellant Gurdeep Singh and his relative Trilok Singh had come to the house of deceased Kartar Singh, hurled abuses and when they were asked not to abuse by the deceased, Trilok Singh took out his pistol but the deceased Kartar Singh succeeded in capturing Trilok Singh with the help of other persons when the appellant Gurdeep Singh managed to escape, regarding which an F.I.R. was lodged at the police station under Section 25 Arms Act against Trilok Singh. Thus, the old enmity between two sides was also existing at the time of incident. There was sufficient motive for the appellants to have perpetrated this crime of double murder. All the appellants are closely related, the relationship and party faction has not been denied on behalf of the appellants. 43. It was held in the case of Shivaji Sahab Rao Bobade and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1973 Supreme Court Cases ( Criminal), 1033: ( 1973) 2 SCC 793 that proof of motive satisfies the judicial mind about the likelihood of the authorship of the crime but its absence only demands deeper forensic search and cannot undo the effect of evidence otherwise sufficient. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon, if other clinching evidence exists. 44. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon, if other clinching evidence exists. 44. In the present case, there was enough motive for the appellants to commit this crime and in the case of direct evidence, the motive has no significance, if proved by cogent, credible and reliable evidence. 45. One more contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Jagir Singh ( PW-1), first informant and son of deceased Kartar Singh, Santok Singh ( PW-2) injured witness and son of deceased Kartar Singh and Bachan Singh ( PW-3), nephew of deceased Kartar Singh, are related and interested witnesses and their evidence should be thrown away. No independent witness was examined by the prosecution at the trial. 46. We have also considered this submission. In the case in hand, non-examination of independent witness or persons of the locality does not create any doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case or the evidence of the eye witnesses. The evidence of the related witnesses cannot be thrown away because they are not likely to implicate innocent persons while explicating the real culprits. 47. It had been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1968 Supreme Court, 1438 ( in paragraph 6) that prosecution witnesses being sons and daughters of the deceased do not detract from value to be attached to their evidence because naturally enough, they are interested in seeing that the real murderer of their father is convicted of the offence and they cannot be expected to adopt a course, by which some innocent person would be substituted for the person really guilty of the murder. None of the witnesses had any such enmity with the appellant, as could induce him to give false evidence and to substitute him as the murderer in place of person really guilty. In fact, their feelings would be strongest against the real culprits and consequently their evidence cannot be discarded on the mere ground of their close interest in the deceased. 48. It had been observed in the State of Punjab Vs. In fact, their feelings would be strongest against the real culprits and consequently their evidence cannot be discarded on the mere ground of their close interest in the deceased. 48. It had been observed in the State of Punjab Vs. Hari Singh and another, 1975 ACC 115 ( S.C.) that the mere fact that a witness is related to a victim could not be a good enough ground for rejecting his testimony although it may be a good ground for scrutinizing his evidence more critically and carefully where facts and circumstances disclose that only relations have been produced and others, presumably independent witnesses, who were available were not produced. 49. On the point of interested witnesses, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Jagdeo, 2003 Cri.L.J. 844 ( S.C.) observed that only on the ground of interested or related witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded. Most of the times eye witnesses happen to be family members or close associates because unless a crime is committed near a public place, strangers are not likely to be present at the time of occurrence. 50. In Har Singh M. Vasava Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1212 ( S.C.) it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that mere relationship between complainant/tenant and deceased/landlord cannot be stressed to hold that the complainant was interested witness in the case of murder of landlord. The murder took place in the house of the complainant, a tenant of deceased and the F.I.R. was lodged promptly by the complainant. The evidence of complainant, who was eye witness and natural witness, which was corroborated by medical evidence, the other witnesses present on the place of occurrence were declared hostile. This fact would not render the testimony of complainant inadmissible. Further his failure to intervene to save life of the deceased cannot be a ground to discard his testimony particularly, when he was not asked as to what restrained or refrained from his intervening. The conviction of accused in the case in the circumstances was not interfered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 51. In Mst. Dalbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, 1976 Cr.L.J. 418 ( S.C.) following observations were made:- ( i) Interested witness:- Relatives who are natural witnesses are not interested witnesses and their testimony can be relied upon. The conviction of accused in the case in the circumstances was not interfered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 51. In Mst. Dalbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, 1976 Cr.L.J. 418 ( S.C.) following observations were made:- ( i) Interested witness:- Relatives who are natural witnesses are not interested witnesses and their testimony can be relied upon. The term 'interested' postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other is convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other reason. In the reported case the incident took place at mid night inside the house, the only natural witnesses who could be present to see the assault were the persons present in the house at that time. No outsider can be expected to have come at that time because the attack was sudden. Moreover a close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. ( ii) Witness gained over by accused not examined by the prosecution- held withholding or keeping back of witnesses is not unfair and adverse inference cannot be drawn. There is no duty on the prosecution to examine witnesses who might have been gained over by accused and even if those witnesses are not produced by the prosecution, there is nothing to stop accused from applying to the court for examining such witnesses. ( iii) witness who gives details with absolute accuracy is trustworthy. 52. In Yakub Ismail Bhai Patel Vs. State of Gujrat, 2004 Cr. L.J. 4205 ( S.C.) and also 2004 Cr. L.J. 3118 ( S.C.), it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that human behaviour or conduct of a witness depends upon facts and circumstances of each given case and there is no set rule of natural reaction. The evidence of any eye witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner in a particular situation. In Yakub Ismail Bhai Patel's case, the accused inflicted injuries on vital organs of the deceased, eye witnesses, friends of the deceased present on the spot did not go forward to help deceased at the time of incident and did not stop the accused. In Yakub Ismail Bhai Patel's case, the accused inflicted injuries on vital organs of the deceased, eye witnesses, friends of the deceased present on the spot did not go forward to help deceased at the time of incident and did not stop the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that these cannot the circumstances to disbelieve testimony of the said witnesses, particularly when rest of testimony of the witnesses is tested with cross examination. 53. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki, 1981 Allahabad Criminal Rulings, 254 ( S.C.) it was held that in the depositions of witnesses, there are always normal discrepancies however, honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory, due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence and the like material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. 54. In Chand Khan Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2140, it was observed that minor discrepancies in evidence of eye witnesses who have given convincing and reliable evidence with regard to details and manner of assault will not affect their evidentiary value. Absence or insufficiency of motive is immaterial if the incident is proved by evidence of eye witnesses. 55. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Arjun Singh and others, ( 2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 115 has recently observed that non recovery of pistol or cartridge namely crime incriminating material or other articles does not detract the case of the prosecution where clinching and direct evidence is acceptable. Likewise, absence of evidence regarding recovery of used pellets, bloodstained clothes etc. cannot be taken or construed as no such occurrence had taken place. In this case law, regarding motive, it has been observed that motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for the prosecution to prove since one cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Even in the absence of specific evidence as to motive, in view of the fact that in the case on hand, two persons have been killed and one sustained injuries due to firearms, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out on this ground. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Even in the absence of specific evidence as to motive, in view of the fact that in the case on hand, two persons have been killed and one sustained injuries due to firearms, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out on this ground. It has further been observed in this case that the testimony of interested witnesses should not be rejected merely because witnesses are related to the deceased. Their testimonies have to be carefully analysed because of their relationship and if the same are cogent and if there is no discrepancy, the same are acceptable. 56. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mano Dutt and another Vs. State of U.P., 2012 ( 77) ACC, 209 ( S.C.) in paragraph 23 has recently observed as follows:- " In our view, non-examination of Nankoo, to which the accused raised the objection, would not materially affect the case of the prosecution. Normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he is the sufferer himself and thus, there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence, or to involve anybody falsely and in the bargain, protect the real culprit. We need not discuss more elaborately the weightage that should be attached by the Court to the testimony of an injured witness. In fact, this aspect of criminal jurisprudence is no more res integra, as has been consistently stated by this Court in uniform language. We may merely refer to the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ ( 2010) 10 SCC 259 ], where this Court held as under: "28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant( s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, Bhag Singh, Mohar v. State of U.P. ( SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra.] 29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: ( SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29) "28. Darshan Singh ( PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. 29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon ( vide Krishan v. State of Haryana). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh ( PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below." 30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh ( PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below." 30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein." 57. In view of the above, the testimony of Jagir Singh PW-1, injured Santok Singh PW-2 and Bachan Singh PW-3 is natural, credible and reliable and their presence on the date, time and place of occurrence is established beyond doubt. We have gone through their evidence deeply and cautiously and come to the conclusion that they are truthful and natural witnesses and there was no reason for them to falsely implicated the appellants. There is no ground for false implication of the appellants in this case. PW-2 was injured in the same incident in which two persons lost their lives and presence of injuries on his person itself is a guarantee of his presence at the time of incident. There are no material or major contradictions in the testimonies of three eye witnesses but their evidence is in conformity with one other. Some minor contradictions in the evidence of eye witnesses in all the criminal cases are quite inherent and natural because of certain factors including personal assessment of the witnesses about narration of the incident. 58. One more contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that digested food was found in the stomach of both the deceased persons while in the F.I.R. Jagir Singh got it mentioned that he and others were sitting in the courtyard of their house after taking their meals and due to this fact, evidence of eye witnesses should be disbelieved. This argument has no substance because Jagir Singh in his F.I.R. stated that both the deceased persons had taken their food sometime at about 2.00 P.M. Jagir Singh PW-1 stated that both the deceased persons had taken their food sometime at about 2.00 P.M. and rest of the inmates of the house had taken their food just sometime before the incident. There is nothing wrong in this statement and there is no evidence on record to show that both the deceased persons had just taken their food prior to their deaths. Only semi-digested food was found in the stomach of both the deceased persons by doctor who conducted autopsy. Semi digested food could be available in the stomach even if food had been taken one hour earlier before death. Complete digestion of the food does not take place even for about 7.00-8.00 hours in some cases. From the evidence of Jagir Singh PW-1, it come out that two deceased had taken their food at about 2.00 P.M. The incident took place somewhere at about 6.00 P.M. So even if the semi-digested food was found in the stomach of two deceased, the prosecution evidence does not become unbelieveable. 59. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rambali Vs. State of U.P., 2004 Cr. L.J. 2490 ( S.C.) while dealing with variance between the ocular version and medical evidence in a murder case observed that the state of contents of stomach found at the time of medical examination is not safe guide for determining time of occurrence in absence of reliable evidence on the question as to when exactly deceased had his last meal and what that meal consisted of. Mere failure or omission or negligence on the part of Investigating Officer cannot affect credibility of prosecution version. 60. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh, 2003 S.C.C. ( Crl.) 641, held that failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to send the firearm and the empties recovered from the spot to Forensic Science Laboratory and failure to take into possession wire gauze of the window of the baithak from where gunshot was fired, cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case where the case is fully established from the testimony of eye witnesses. 61. In State of Punjab Vs. Hakam Singh, 2005 Cr. 61. In State of Punjab Vs. Hakam Singh, 2005 Cr. L.J. 4111 ( S.C.), it was again observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if testimony of eye witnesses is found truthful and reliable then in such cases, seizure of firearms and recovering empties and sending them for examination by ballistic expert would have only corroborated the prosecution case but not sending them to the ballistic expert is not fatal. 62. The evidence of the eye witnesses is corroborated from the medical evidence and also from the recovery of weapons from the appellants as discussed above. The prosecution has absolutely succeeded to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt by the evidence of truthful and reliable eye witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of bloodstained weapons. The charges levelled against the appellants are proved from the evidence on record. After analysing the evidence discussed above, we affirm and confirm the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.1980 and there appears to be no reason to deviate from those findings. The conviction and sentence of the appellants as ordered by the trial court is hereby confirmed. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 63. Since the appeal in respect of surviving appellants namely, Amarjit Singh ( appellant No. 2), Gurdeep Singh ( appellant No. 3), Surta Singh ( appellant No. 5) and Lakkha Singh ( appellant No. 7) is dismissed, their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the trial court immediately to serve out the remaining part of the sentence awarded to them. If they fail to surrender, the trial court is directed to get the appellants arrested and send them to jail for serving out the remaining part of the sentence awarded by the trial court by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.1980. 64. Let a copy of the judgment be certified to the trial court for its intimation.