JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. In the instance case criminal law was set into motion by filing a complaint (Ext.Ka-5) by Govind Singh s/o Kharak Singh of village Dhimmer Khera of P.S. Gadarpur, District Nainital on 12.07.1995. On the basis of complaint (Ext.Ka-5) chik FIR (Ext.Ka-12) was lodged by P.S. Gadarpur on 12.07.1995 at 2:15 a.m. Occurrence took place on 12.07.1995 at 1:00 a.m. Distance between place of occurrence and P.S. Gadarpur was 5 k.m. Hence there was no delay in lodging FIR. 2. Prosecution story was that informant along with members of his joint family were sleeping in night at their home. A lantern and dibia (small lamp) was providing light. Around 1:00 a.m. (in the night) he woke up on barking of dogs. He saw that Appellant Swaroop Singh s/o Doori Singh and Hemraj s/o Meenaram who were co-villagers of informant, entered into his house along with two companions. They started searching for informant’s brother Hoshiyar Singh with the help of torch. Informant’s mother Laxmi Devi, father Kharak Singh, brothers Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh all woke up. Informant asked, ‘what was the matter?’ Assailants surrounded the cot of Hoshiyar Singh and no sooner Hoshiyar Singh enquired about the matter, appellants Swaroop Singh took out country made pistol and fired on Hoshiyar Singh with the intention of killing him. The bullet hit the chest of Hoshiyar Singh which resulted in his death. Co-accused Hansraj said,’ let us go, work is done’. Accused persons fled away waving country made pistol. Informant along with his brother chased assailants. They again fired with country made pistol causing grievous injuries to Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh. They were frightened. Many a villagers assembled there. Hoshiyar Singh and Swaroop Singh had scuffle a few days before this incident. Assailants shot dead Hoshiyar Singh because of said enmity. 3. Since the appellant was convicted by learned trial court on 08.02.2002 after conclusion of trial and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC; also sentenced to undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, therefore, present criminal appeal was preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated 08.02.2002. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC; also sentenced to undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, therefore, present criminal appeal was preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated 08.02.2002. Both the sentences were directed by learned trial court to run concurrently. Aggrieved against said judgment and order convicting the accused / appellant and sentencing him as above, this appeal was filed. Co-accused Hansraj and Somal Singh were acquitted by learned trial court. 4. P.W.1 Kishan Singh said in his examination-in-chief that on 12.07.1995, when he was sleeping in his house and one lantern and a dibia (small lamp) was providing light, then at 1:00 a.m. (night) he heard sound of barking of dogs. He woke up. He saw that his co-villagers Swaroop Singh, Hansraj along with two others entered into his house and started searching for his brother Hoshiyar Singh. They gradually approached Hoshiyar Singh who was sleeping on a cot. No sooner Hosiryar Singh enquired from them, Swaroop Singh fired on his chest with a country made pistol. Hoshiyar Singh died on the spot. Hansraj uttered the words, ‘work has been done’. Swaroop Singh, Hansraj and others started fleeing. Kishan Singh and others chased assailant. While they were being chased, one of the accused fired on Gopal Singh. Brother of P.W.1 Kishan Singh, namely, Gopal Singh sustained injuries. A quarrel took place between Swaroop Singh and Hoshiyar Singh two days before the incident. Swaroop Singh was inimical to Hoshiyar Singh and that was why he killed Hoshiyar Singh. Victim was taken to hospital at Gadarpur. Doctor sent them to police station. P.W.1 Kishan Singh was sent to Government Hospial, Bajpur for medical examination. P.W.1 Kishan Singh said that he knew only Swaroop Singh and Hansraj and none of the other accused. 5. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 Kishan Singh said that they were six brothers in all. Dharam Singh was the eldest one. Dharam Singh used to reside separately in Gularbhoj. They owned land at Dhimer Khera. Dharam Singh died about 8-9 years ago (from the date of deposition of this witness). Dharam Singh’s wife and son did not come to them after his demise. Dharam Singh was the eldest one. Dharam Singh used to reside separately in Gularbhoj. They owned land at Dhimer Khera. Dharam Singh died about 8-9 years ago (from the date of deposition of this witness). Dharam Singh’s wife and son did not come to them after his demise. He denied the suggestion put forward on behalf of accused / appellant that there was a dispute of land between Hoshiyar Singh and Dharam Singh. P.W.1 Kishan Singh also said that all of his brothers were residing in one building in different portions. There was a 15 feet wide courtyard between Hoshiyar Singh’s portion and P.W.1 Kishan Singh’s portion. He also said that Hoshiyar Singh and his father were sleeping in an open courtyard. His mother was sleeping in southern room. Hoshiyar Singh’s wife was sleeping in another room. This witness was sleeping in the verandah of his room. There was a lantern lighting verandah. A lamp was lighting where his mother was sleeping. They slept at around 11:00 p.m. It did not rain before occurrence took place but it rained after the incident took place. They had a quarrel with Swaroop Singh (over supply of water). No report was lodged in the police station regarding that dispute because it was a small matter. They had no dispute with Hansraj. Swaroop Singh and Hansraj did not belong to same village. Swaroop Singh and Hansraj were not related to each other. On hearing noise of barking of dogs, P.W.1 Kishan Singh got up first. Gopal Singh, his brother got up then. P.W.1 Kishan Singh saw Swaroop Singh and Hansraj bending over Hoshiyar Singh. Swaroop Singh fired on Hoshiyar Singh, no sooner this witness enquired from him as to what was he doing? Hoshiyar Singh could not get up. There was only one fire. Hoshiyar Singh was wearing only one underwear. Assailants fled away after committing the crime. All of them had country made pistols in their hands. While fleeing away, assailants fired on those who were chasing them. P.W.1 Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh were wearing undershirts and underwears. P.W.1 Kishan Singh became unconscious when he received fire injury. He was taken to Bajpur Hospital. Accused / appellant Swaroop Singh was having a torch at the time of incident. Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh remained admitted in hospital for about a week. Horilal, Mohan, Chandu and Darshan Singh reside in their neighborhood. P.W.1 Kishan Singh became unconscious when he received fire injury. He was taken to Bajpur Hospital. Accused / appellant Swaroop Singh was having a torch at the time of incident. Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh remained admitted in hospital for about a week. Horilal, Mohan, Chandu and Darshan Singh reside in their neighborhood. After the accused persons fired on them, witnesses came. P.W.1 Kishan Singh denied that crime was committed by unknown assailants and accused persons were falsely implicated in the case. 6. P.W.2 Gopal Singh, brother of P.W.1 Kishan Singh and deceased Hoshiyar Singh was another eyewitness. In his examination-in-chief he supported prosecution story that Swaroop Singh fired on chest of Hoshiyar Singh which resulted into his death. When they tried to chase the assailants, Swaroop Singh fired on them also which caused injuries to P.W.1 Kishan Singh and P.W.2 Gopal Singh. Apart from being an eyewitness, P.W.2 Gopal Singh was also a witness taking into possession of one empty cartridge by police. He signed over memo Ext. Ka-1. Police also took a torch with three cells in his possession and prepared a memo (Ext.Ka-2). Police also prepared memos (Ext.Ka-3 & Ext.Ka-4) taking into possession of a lamp and a lantern. 7. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 Gopal Singh said that he disclosed only the names of accused Swaroop Singh and Hansraj to the police. He did not disclose the name of any other assailant. He remained admitted in the hospital for 6-7 days. Kishan Singh was his real brother. Swaroop Singh had a dispute (over distribution & supply of) water with Hoshiyar Singh. They owned 1-1½ bigha of land near the house. Hoshiyar Singh was sleeping in the verandah of room facing north. His father was sleeping in the same verandah. Assailants came through baithak (drawing room). P.W.2 Gopal Singh was sleeping in northern room. They slept at around 10-10:30 p.m. Lantern and dibia (small lamp) were providing light. Their village was connected with electricity but there was no light that day. P.W.2 Gopal Singh woke up with noise of barking of dogs. There was no house adjoining their house. There was a pathway and only thereafter there were houses of Horilal and Mohan Singh, etc. When P.W.2 Gopal Singh woke up, he sat on the cot and saw that there were 4-5 people standing near his brother. All the assailants were having county made pistols. There was no house adjoining their house. There was a pathway and only thereafter there were houses of Horilal and Mohan Singh, etc. When P.W.2 Gopal Singh woke up, he sat on the cot and saw that there were 4-5 people standing near his brother. All the assailants were having county made pistols. This witness did not hear the sound of fire (which killed Hoshiyar Singh). He heard the sound of fire which was made in the air. As soon as the assailants started fleeing, P.W.2 Gopal Singh went to Hoshiyar Singh who was found dead. When assailants were fleeing, they fired on those who were chasing them from a distance of 5-6 paces. P.W.2 Gopal received injuries. His brother P.W.1 Kishan also sustained injuries, both went to the hospital. People in the neighborhood came later on. He fell unconscious after receiving injuries. P.W.2 Gopal Singh denied any quarrel between Hoshiyar Singh and Swaroop Singh. P.W.2 Gopal said that he was wearing undershirt and underwear. Hoshiyar Singh was wearing only underwear when the occurrence took place. 8. P.W.3 Govind Singh was another eyewitness to the killing of his brother Hoshiyar Singh. In his examination-in-chief, he supported prosecution story. He woke up at 1:00 a.m. upon barking of dogs. When he came out of his room, he saw Hansraj and Swaroop Singh along with two others. They enquired about Hoshiyar Singh. Hoshiyar Singh also woke up and no sooner he enquired from them, appellant Swaroop Singh inflicted bullet injuries on chest of Hoshiyar Singh, who died on the spot. Co-accused Hansraj Singh said, ‘work is done’. Accused persons fled away. Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh chased them. Accused persons fired on them due to which Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh also sustained injuries. Kishan Singh fell unconscious. Thereafter co-villagers Chetram, Bhura Singh also came there. 9. P.W.3 Gopal Singh was the informant. First of all he went to village pradhan Lalaram. Thereafter he went to the police station with Kishan Singh, Gopal Singh and Chetram whereupon he submitted complaint (Ext.Ka-5). Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh went to Gadarpur Hospital where Kishan and Gopal were provided medical aid thereafter they were taken to Bajpur Hospital where both injured were admitted. P.W.2 Gopal Singh said that a lantern was lighting where Hoshiyar Singh was sleeping. There was a dibia (small lamp) where his brother was sleeping. Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh went to Gadarpur Hospital where Kishan and Gopal were provided medical aid thereafter they were taken to Bajpur Hospital where both injured were admitted. P.W.2 Gopal Singh said that a lantern was lighting where Hoshiyar Singh was sleeping. There was a dibia (small lamp) where his brother was sleeping. Hoshiyar Singh was told 2-3 days before the incident that a quarrel took place between him and Swaroop Singh over distribution of water. He was also a witness to memo, taking blood stained soil, simple soil and gadda (bed cushion) where deceased was sleeping as Ext.Ka-6. He was also a witness to taking into possession of spent bullet and pellet (Ext.Ka-7) and also a memo (Ext.Ka-8) taking into possession of bullet by police. 10. In his cross-examination, P.W.3 Govind Singh said that when Investigating Officer came it was raining. Investigating Officer conducted inquest. Investigating Officer also took empty cartridge and shell in his possession. This witness Gopal Singh was sleeping in the eastern room (of the room where Hoshiyar Singh was sleeping). P.W.3 Gopal Singh heard sound of only one fire. According to him, the assailants came from eastern side. Hoshiyar Singh was killed while sleeping on the cot. Blood stained soil was taken from a place adjacent to the place where Hoshiyar Singh was sleeping on cot. He was wearing underwear at the time of death. A lantern was hanging on the wall. They reached police station after about 2-2½ hours. Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh accompanied him although they were not fully conscious. Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh were admitted to Hospital. Hansraj belonged to a different village. Hoshiyar Singh had told him about his quarrel with Swaroop Singh over distribution of water, although quarrel did not take place in his presence. He denied any dispute with first wife of his brother Jeevan Singh. He also denied that some unknown assailants killed his brother and they wanted to grab land of Swaroop Singh. 11. P.W.4 Dr. S. Bahuguna conducted post mortem on the dead body of Hoshiyar Singh on 12.07.1995. He also proved his report (Ext.Ka-9). He found following ante mortem injuries on his dead body: Firearm wound of entry in an area of 11 × 6 cm × chest cavity deep on the right side of chest, extending from mid of sternum upto 6 cm above right nipple. Margin inverted. He also proved his report (Ext.Ka-9). He found following ante mortem injuries on his dead body: Firearm wound of entry in an area of 11 × 6 cm × chest cavity deep on the right side of chest, extending from mid of sternum upto 6 cm above right nipple. Margin inverted. Bleeding around the wound margins present. On opening: echymosis underneath the injury. 3rd and 4th ribs on right side fractured. Right lung and left lung punctured. Heart punctured at places. Empty. Two liters fluid blood in chest cavity. Three wound pieces and twenty-eight pellets recovered from left side chest wall and chest cavity and both lungs. The cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem firearm injuries. Such death was possible at 1:00 a.m. on the intervening night of 11/12.07.1995. 12. P.W.5 Dr. K. Chandra proved injury report on injured Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh as Ext.Ka-10 & Ext.Ka-11. He found the following injuries on the body of Kishan Singh: 1. Multiple lacerated wounds ranging from 0.1 cm to 0.2 cm × 0.1 cm to 0.15 cm. Rounded to oval in shape, inverted margins and a long lacerated wound 02.8 cm × 0.7 cm in between the multiple wounds, depth could not be ascertained, in the area of right front chest (lower part of chest, lateral part of chest & posterior part of chest) and right front of abdomen, lateral part of abdomen and posterior part of abdomen about 23.0 cm × 21.0 cm. Blackening. Advised – X - ray chest A.P. view, X - ray abdomen – A.P. view. 2. Multiple lacerated wounds ranging from 0.1 cm to 0.2 cm × 0.1 cm × 0.15 cm rounded to oval in shape, inverted margins with blackening in the area of 15.0 cm × 07.0 cm over the front of right upper arm including elbow. Depth could not be ascertained. Advised – X - ray right upper arm including elbow A.P. & lateral views. Opinion – Patient admitted and referred to General Surgeon Dr. S. Bhardwaj, C.H.C. Bajpur, Nainital, fresh in duration caused by firearm. For nature – injuries kept under observation. 13. He also found following injuries on the body of Gopal Singh: 1. Depth could not be ascertained. Advised – X - ray right upper arm including elbow A.P. & lateral views. Opinion – Patient admitted and referred to General Surgeon Dr. S. Bhardwaj, C.H.C. Bajpur, Nainital, fresh in duration caused by firearm. For nature – injuries kept under observation. 13. He also found following injuries on the body of Gopal Singh: 1. Two lacerated wounds 0.3 cm × 0.3 cm × 06.0 cm away from each other, over right lateral (lower) and posterior (lower) part of chest with inverted margins, with blackening, rounded in shape, 05.5 cm & 11.0 cm above the right hypocostal margin, depth could not be ascertained. Advised – X - ray Chest A.P. view. Opinion – Patient admitted, referred to Genneral Surgeon Dr. S. Bhardwaj, C.H.C. Bajpur, Nainital. Injuries are fresh in duration, caused by firearm. For nature kept under observation and said that injuries to Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh were possible to be inflicted at 1:00 a.m. in the intervening night of 11/12.07.1995. 14. P.W.6 S.O. Anant Ram Singh was the Investigating Officer of the case. He proved chik FIR (Ext.Ka-12) and copy of G.D. (Ext.Ka-13). He inspected place of occurrence and proved site plan (Ext.Ka-14). He was also signatory to inquest report (Ext.Ka-15). He prepared memo of taking empty cartridge (Ext.Ka-1), memos of taking torch, dibia and lantern (Exts. Ka-2 to Ka-4). He took into his possession gadda (form) (Ext.1) in which victim was sleeping and prepared a memo (Ext.Ka-6) in respect thereof. Investigating Officer also prepared memo (Ext.Ka-7 & Ext.Ka-8) of taking pellet, bullet, etc. He also prepared other papers relating to inquest which have been proved as Exts. Ka-16 to Ka-20. Finally he submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka-21) against the accused persons. 15. The allegation against the accused / appellant was that he had some dispute over sharing of water with deceased. The defense version was that there was no such thing. The question was whether the same could have been accepted by a prudent person? 16. Country made pistol was said to be recovered from the possession of accused / appellant Swaroop Singh. The same was not sent to ballistic expert. No recovery memo was prepared as per law. Trial court has wrongly held that a country made pistol was recovered from the possession of Swaroop Singh. P.W.6 Anant Ram Singh said in his examination-in-chief about recovery of empty cartridge. The same was not sent to ballistic expert. No recovery memo was prepared as per law. Trial court has wrongly held that a country made pistol was recovered from the possession of Swaroop Singh. P.W.6 Anant Ram Singh said in his examination-in-chief about recovery of empty cartridge. In his statement at page 5 he said that on 16-07-1995 he arrested Swaroop Singh having country made pistol and a live cartridge. This piece of evidence could not be accepted under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Although he said in his cross examination that he sent country made pistol and cartridge to ballistic expert but admitted that report of the same was not available. There was no confession memo, no disclosure memo and recovery memo as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Country made pistol and cartridge was not recovered at the pointing out and at behest of appellant Swaroop Singh. It was possession simplicitor. Prosecution could not connect the pistol with crime. 17. Prosecution story could not be belied on this ground alone for, there was direct evidence implicating appellant in the commission of crime. Entire prosecution story depends upon testimony of three eyewitnesses. P.W.1 Kishan Singh came as a corroborative piece of evidence. Evidence of P.W.1 Kishan Singh survives as corroborator. Main witness is P.W.3 Govind Singh, who builds up a story. P.W.1 Kishan Singh is the corroborator of prosecution story. Suppose we do not believe P.W.3 Govind Singh, then entire evidence of P.W.1 Kishan Singh goes into he dustbin but the opposite is not true. Either you rise or fall with the rise and fall of P.W.3 Govind Singh. The question is–will it be safe to believe the testimony of P.W.3 Govind Sngh because of his conduct? 18. There was one firing inside the house which caused death of Hoshiyar Singh. Triggering device, etc. are really of no consequence if there is no substantial variation in FIR and eyewitness account. Testimony of P.W.3 Govind Singh was the most important piece of evidence. It has to be read with other evidence and only then we can come to the conclusion whether we should or we should not believe his evidence. P.W.3 Govind Singh was sleeping in a room. He heard sound of barking of dogs. He got up by reason of barking of dogs. He found two accused along with other unknown faces in the garden area. P.W.3 Govind Singh was sleeping in a room. He heard sound of barking of dogs. He got up by reason of barking of dogs. He found two accused along with other unknown faces in the garden area. By the time the victim also got up who said, “what did he want?” Victim was fired upon. Then assailants fled away. Victim’s brother was sleeping little further. They chased assailants but could not apprehend either of the assassins. There are two injured and one complainant – in all three eyewitnesses are there. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the site plan and testimony of P.W.1 Kishan Singh, directions are different. P.W.1 Kishan Singh who was injured saw pumping of bullet from a distance of 5 to 7 meters. She also submitted that according to doctor there was blackening and charring injuries, which tells a different story. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued as to what was the need of having a torch if lamp was providing light inside the house? She said that there are contradictions between oral evidence and site plan. P.W.1 Kishan and P.W.2 Gopal got injured. Hoshiyar Singh died. P.W.3 Govind Singh is the complainant. Learned defense counsel said that when light was already there why dibia (small lamp) was lighting and why torch was being carried out by assailants? According to her it was a case of HIT AND RUN. 21. The assailants were not silent movers. They were very loud people who had come there with a purpose. They did not have the knowledge whether light was there in the house or not. That is why they came there with torch. Contradiction between dibia (small lamp) and lantern was also highlighted on behalf of defense. According to learned counsel for appellant it was a case of HIT & RUN and therefore, they (prosecution) introduced lantern and dibia. Said argument is not acceptable for the reason that assailants were there with a target. Since it was a dark night and therefore they carried torch with them. They were preplanned to kill Hoshiyar Singh and therefore, they brought torch. Torch must have been used by them. They might have switched on the same or might not have on finding that dibia and lantern were there. Difference between dibia and lantern is hardly discernable, for both are sources of light. They were preplanned to kill Hoshiyar Singh and therefore, they brought torch. Torch must have been used by them. They might have switched on the same or might not have on finding that dibia and lantern were there. Difference between dibia and lantern is hardly discernable, for both are sources of light. Dibia and lantern loses its importance in the case. 22. P.W.1 Kishan Sigh knew the assailants. He fired on victim and his companion said, ‘our work is done’. Firing was seen by P.W.1 Kishan Singh. Firing was not intercepted by others. It was the principal argument on behalf of appellant that the eyewitnesses were not able to see who had committed the murder? Some persons shot fire at them but eyewitnesses could not identify the assailants. It was merely on suspicion that the name of appellant Swaroop Singh was roped in. Accused said in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they wanted to grab his land and that is why he was falsely implicated. Appellant was roped in because of alleged scuffle between Hoshiyar Singh and Swaroop Singh a few days before the incident. Learned counsel for the appellant then argued that the complainant side wanted to dispossess appellant from the land. If any suggestion was raised in respect thereof during the course of trial, the same is not acceptable, as suggestion is no piece of evidence. The question is whether informant implicated appellant unjustly? If there was no dispute between victim and appellant, the question is–why should informant name the appellant? 23. To revisit vital aspects of the evidence of P.W.3 Govind Singh, he was sleeping in his room. On the fateful night he woke up on hearing sound of barking of dogs, came out of his room, saw that appellant who belonged to same village along with Hansraj and two others were present in the courtyard. When enquired what did they want, they surrounded Hoshiyar Singh and fired on Hoshiyar Singh’s chest. Swaroop Singh inflicted injuries and Hansraj said work was done. Accused fled away from the house. They were chased by Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh. They were also fired by assailants. They sustained injuries. Although, motive was not necessary in case of direct evidence, yet P.W.3 Govind Singh said that there was dispute between Hoshiyar Singh and Swaroop Singh over sharing of water. Accused fled away from the house. They were chased by Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh. They were also fired by assailants. They sustained injuries. Although, motive was not necessary in case of direct evidence, yet P.W.3 Govind Singh said that there was dispute between Hoshiyar Singh and Swaroop Singh over sharing of water. In cross-examination, he said that he heard sound of one bullet (which hit Hoshiyar Singh). He did not know as to how many bullets were fired thereafter. He was subjected to detailed cross-examination but nothing has come out which may tend to help appellant and may raise doubt on prosecution story. His eyewitness account is corroborated by the testimony of P.W.1 Kishan Singh and P.W.2 Gopal Singh who were injured as well as eyewitnesses. Presence of these three on the spot cannot be doubted. It is a settled law that the testimony of related witnesses should be scrutinized thoroughly and carefully. Judged by this yardstick this court is of the view that all the three eyewitnesses were natural witnesses. If there is some contradiction in the site plan and eyewitness account of prosecution witnesses on the issue of directions (east-west-north-south), it is a trivial issue, for it is also a settled law that prosecution cannot be faulted for the mistakes / lacunae left by Investigating Officer during investigation. FIR is not delayed. All the three eyewitnesses have withstood the test of scrutiny of cross-examination. It is a case of direct evidence. It cannot be doubted that appellant was identified wrongly by the eyewitnesses, for he was the fellow villager. He nourished grudge against victim Hoshiyar Singh, for he had scuffle with victim Hoshiyar Singh over sharing of water. There seems to be no infirmity in the finding arrived at by learned trial court. We see no reason to interfere in the conclusion arrived at by learned court below. 24. P.W.1 Kishan Singh, P.W.2 Gopal Singh and P.W.3 Govind Singh – all are eyewitnesses. Principally there was one eyewitnesses i.e. P.W.3 Govind Singh who got up on the fateful night, heard barking of dogs, came out, saw assailants looking for a person, victim also woke up, assailants identified victim, witness said ‘what do you want’, appellant fired on him and his co-accused said ‘work is done’. P.W.3 Govind Singh heard only one bullet sound. Principally there was one eyewitnesses i.e. P.W.3 Govind Singh who got up on the fateful night, heard barking of dogs, came out, saw assailants looking for a person, victim also woke up, assailants identified victim, witness said ‘what do you want’, appellant fired on him and his co-accused said ‘work is done’. P.W.3 Govind Singh heard only one bullet sound. Injury reports of P.W.1 Kishan Singh and P.W.2 Gopal Singh corroborate the testimony of P.W.3 Govind Singh, for the same affirmed presence of Kishan Singh and Gopal Singh. They also sustained injuries. They were sleeping nearby their deceased brother. They also woke up after hearing the fire. They chased appellant and in the process suffered injuries. They may not be the main witnesses but they have corroborated the testimony of P.W.3 Govind Singh who is the principal witness. P.W.1 Kishan Singh is the conglomeration of P.W.2 Gopal Singh and P.W.3 Govind Singh, for he also gets up on barking of dogs but does not say when he gets up (whether before or after Hoshiyar Singh was killed by fire). The testimony of P.W.3 Govind Singh was acceptable and so was the testimony of P.W.1 Kishan Singa and P.W.2 Gopal Singh. 25. No doubt enmity is a double-edged weapon. If appellant had harmed victim on account of the fact that there was a dispute between them over sharing of water, there was possibility that the informant might have falsely implicated appellant on account of said enmity. While evaluating evidence courts are supposed to see whether prosecution has been able to prove the case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt? Courts are also supposed to visualize whether defense has been able to create suspicion in the prosecution story? Which of two views is more plausible, within the standards set out distinctly for the same? Whether prosecution story should be discarded simply on the ground that Hoshiyar Singh had dispute with Swaroop Singh on sharing of water? Certainly not. When there is direct evidence roping in participation of appellant in killing of deceased, there is hardly any escape for the killer. Whether prosecution story should be discarded simply on the ground that Hoshiyar Singh had dispute with Swaroop Singh on sharing of water? Certainly not. When there is direct evidence roping in participation of appellant in killing of deceased, there is hardly any escape for the killer. Although appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also gave the reason for false implication that the complainant side wanted to dispossess him from the land being occupied by him but that appears to be hardly a reason for non-acceptance of direct evidence based upon the reliable eyewitness account of natural witnesses duly supported by medical evidence. 26. The appeal therefore merits dismissal. The judgment & order passed by learned lower court should be affirmed. 27. Criminal appeal preferred on behalf of the accused / appellant Swaroop Singh is thus dismissed. The judgment and order dated 08.02.2002 is therefore, affirmed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by learned trial court is accordingly affirmed. The appellant is on bail. His bail is cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the court concerned to receive sentence as awarded by learned trial court and thus affirmed by this Court. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned for ensuring compliance of this order. Let lower court record be sent back.